Authentic Leadership - Essay Example

Authentic learning and Leadership I. Introduction The development of technology has been rapid during the last decades. As a result all the particular sectors of social life have been transformed in order to meet the standards set for the daily activities. In this context it should be noticed that from the emergence of alphabetic writing as a portable, durable, and replicable means for the preservation of knowledge, to the development of typography and mass literacy, and to the early and mid-20th century emergence of cinema, radio, and television, shifts in dominant modes of information tend to characterize the modern industrial society regarding all its aspects (Luke, 2003, 397). Moreover, education which is a basic element of the social life has been influenced deeply by the changes taking place in all human activities. Under the above pressures, authentic learning has been proved to be a valuable tool in order to preserve the important elements of human history but also to achieve a significant level of development based on the knowledge that has been tested on the experimental field. The reason that authentic learning has been chosen as a subject for research is because of its very important role on the preservation and the further development of knowledge in all particular theoretical and empirical fields. The combination of authentic learning with leadership has also proved that the effective control of the educational activities can lead to the development of students’ level of knowledge no matter their usual performance in the school environment. The paper has been divided in two main parts the first of which refers to the presentation of the general literature review regarding all the issues related with authenticity and learning as well as their interaction with leadership. At a next level, a potential scheme of ‘authentic learning environment’ is proposed in order to prove the role and the function of authenticity in the learning procedure. The reference to an existed project dealing with this specific issue has been added in order to present the operation of similar strategies in the educational environment. A series of possible recommendations has also been added in order to identify possible areas that need improvement from a personal point of view. II. Literature review IIa. Authenticity – Definition and characteristics Authenticity, like “creativity” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) and “entrepreneurship” (Peterson, 1980), does not inhere in the object, person, or performance said to be authentic (Grayson and Martinec, 2004). Rather, authenticity is a claim that is made by or for someone, thing, or performance and either accepted or rejected by relevant others (Peterson, 2005, 1086). Furthermore, the most common sense use of the term authenticity has to do with discrete objects. So for example, looking at the page which you are reading, you might ask, “Is this the original Magna Carta?” or “Is it a ten Euro note?”. Reasonable folks would likely agree that it is neither of these. Works of art or archaeological arte-facts may be more difficult to authenticate, but experts of any given time agree on the appropriate procedures to be used in testing for authenticity (Conklin, 1994; Harrington, 2004). It should also be noticed that anyone who has used the word ‘authenticity’ or has tried to track how others use it knows how slippery it is. It is tempting to say that we use it in different ways at different times because we are confused, or because we are trying to dress up our preferences in fancy philosophical garb. According to Parens (2005, 41) its slipperiness reflects the fact that we think about authenticity in different ways; we think out of different frameworks at different times. From a general point of view, the content and the role of authenticity tend to be differentiated in accordance with the particular conditions (social or others) on which it refers and which it serves. IIb. Authentic learning – main characteristics and aspects Traditionally, an implicit assumption of educators has been that classroom learning will more or less be transferred to other problems encountered at work, at home, or in other classroom settings. This “transfer assumption” is so pervasive that many have come to believe that it is a routine and predictable artifact of teaching and learning. In fact, this belief is the heart of the prerequisite curriculum so common at almost all levels of the U.S. educational system. Curriculum designers often assume that arithmetic learned in a basic math class will transfer as students encounter algebra in a subsequent class. This principle is customarily represented in curricula ranging across the entire educational spectrum from the elementary school to the top research universities (Schell, p.8). During the twentieth century, educators Ralph Tyler, Benjamin Bloom and others underscored the observation that schooling is fundamentally about children learning. More important than the question of whether and what teachers have taught is the question of whether and what teachers have taught is the question of whether and what students have learnt. Of course, these are related: if teachers are not teaching, then students are unlikely to be learning. But it was an important shift to put student learning at the heart of the education process. From the point of view of accountability, it was no longer sufficient to know that teachers had taught the syllabus (input); the more important question was what progress students had made (output) (Masters, 2005). The term “authentic” is adopted from the field of humanistic psychology. As such, its meaning is less a claim to exclusivity in the “truth” of assessment than it is indicative of the belief that authentic assessment is inescapably linked to the notion of education being for self-actualisation. Inextricable from such a position is the commitment to individuals being empowered in their personal growth through education, including decisions about content, teaching and learning methods, and methods of demonstrating development and achievement. This intensely personal perspective on assessment is captured by Stevenson (1998, 252, Williams et al., 1999, 147) who suggests that assessment is an element of the learning process that “enables the teachers to better understand how schooling is being experienced from the student’s point of view. At a next level, authentic learning is a pedagogical approach that allows students to explore, discuss, and meaningfully construct concepts and relationships in contexts that involve real-world problems and projects that are relevant to the learner (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999).  The term authentic is defined as genuine, true, and real (Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998).  If learning is authentic, then students should be engaged in genuine learning problems that foster the opportunity for them to make direct connections between the new material that is being learned and their prior knowledge.  These kinds of experiences will increase student motivation (Mims, 2003, 1).  Moreover, descriptions of authentic assessment have tended to focus on defining by example. This definition by Simon is typical: Authentic assessment, also known as alternative or performance assessment includes such ways to measure student progress as writing portofolios, cooperative group projects, exhibitions, observations, personal communication, experiments, and performances. At their core is students’ ability to apply knowledge to solve problems (Simon, 1986, p. 12, cited in Williams, 1999, 153). Under the above terms, authentic instruction will take on a much different form than traditional methods of teaching.  The literature suggests that authentic learning has several key characteristics. Learning is centered on authentic tasks that are of interest to the learners. Students are engaged in exploration and inquiry. Learning, most often, is interdisciplinary. Learning is closely connected to the world beyond the walls of the classroom. Students become engaged in complex tasks and higher-order thinking skills, such as analyzing, synthesizing, designing, manipulating and evaluating information. Students produce a product that can be shared with an audience outside the classroom. Learning is student driven with teachers, parents, and outside experts all assisting/coaching in the learning process. Learners employ scaffolding techniques. Students have opportunities for social discourse. Ample resources are available.  (Donovan et al., 1999; Newman & Associates, 1996; Newmann et al., 1995; Nolan & Francis, 1992, Mims, 2003). However, it should be noticed that learning is a complex procedure that depends mostly on the level of participation of students’ in the tasks taking place in their educational environment (constructivist theory). The constructivist view of learning has its foundations in Piaget (1975) who believed that learning is not transmitted passively, but attained through well-defined stages by active participation of a learner. Vygotsky (1980) presented similar ideas but focused on the importance of socio-cultural activity in learning in addition to introducing flexible stages of development. More recently, the importance of context and “authenticity” in learning has been emphasized by Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989). According to them, “authentic activity is the ordinary practices of cultures.” (p. 36). Lave and Wenger (1991) further extend this view in their influential work on situated learning to point out that, “…Learning occurs through centripetal participation in the learning curriculum of the ambient community” (p. 100). Where the learning curriculum consists of “…situated opportunities (thus, including exemplars of various sorts often thought of as “goals”)” (p. 97). In the above context, constructivist authentic learning environments have been defined as those learning environments whose design is consistent with the principles of the more recent constructivist tradition on how people learn as exemplified by the works of Lave and Wenger (1991) and Brown et al. (1989). As Herrington and Oliver (2000) point out, such learning environments typically provide authentic contexts and activities, access to expert performances, and support multiple roles and perspectives. In addition, such environments also support collaborative construction of knowledge and promote reflection and articulation. Finally, such environments may include coaching and scaffolding by the teacher and provide for authentic assessment of learning within tasks. It has also been noticed that authentic learning activities involve students in complex tasks that require them to use higher level thinking skills. Onosko and Newmann define higher-order thinking as "when a person must interpret, analyze, or manipulate information, because a question to be answered or a problem to be solved cannot be resolved through the routine application of previously learned knowledge" (Onosko, Newmann, 1994). In this context, it is important to teach higher level thinking skills. At the same time in order to succeed in the workplace, children need to become independent, critical thinkers; they must know where and how to find information, organize it, evaluate it, and then effectively express their new knowledge and ideas. They must work cooperatively in teams (Conway, 1998). Authentic learning activities can play a vital role in preparing children for their adult lives. Moreover, authentic learning activities in conjunction with the use of new technologies have the power to stimulate the development of intellectual skills such as reasoning and problem solving ability, learning how to learn, and creativity (Grégoire, Bracewell, Laferrière, 1996). Authentic activities need also to be personally meaningful and relevant to students as well as relevant to the discipline (Tochon, 2000). Authentic learning experiences are achievable in regular classroom settings (Gordon, 1998). In classroom based teaching and learning, authenticity is often gauged by the degree to which student activities are similar to those undertaken by practising communities in the outside world beyond the learning instruction (Stein et al. 2001). When referring to an authentic learning environment, an issue that needs to be highlighted is the behaviour of participants. Piaget and other psychologists believe that the learner must be active to be engaged in real learning (Piaget, 1954, 1974).  Learning becomes active when students are able to connect new knowledge with their prior understanding.  Constructivists take this notion a bit further stating that a meaningful context that brings the real world into the classroom learning environment is key to promoting learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989).  Learning is a process of interacting with the outside world, and continually reanalyzing and reinterpreting new information and its relation to the real world (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). IIc. Role of authentic learning in increasing the level of educational standards One of the most common tools for the application of authentic learning in an educational environment is technology (Cleary, 2004). More specifically, technology can help make authentic learning practical for teachers by providing convenient access to the information gathering and presenting tools that students need. Authentic learning activities can involve "virtual reality" and simulations as well (Conway, J., 1998). Enhanced student reasoning skills have been demonstrated following use of the Archaeotype multimedia software (Wallis, 1995). This software simulates an archaeological site in Assyria and allows small groups of students, for example, to dig at the site, discover artifacts, send them to a laboratory for measuring and weighing, and develop hypotheses on the culture of the society that inhabited this site (Semel, 1992). On the other hand, the role of educators in the development of students’ performance by using specific authentic learning tools is critical (Fink, 2005). In this context, the research made by Glendinning (2005, 209) proved that the role of teachers in the development of the students’ educational level depends on the specific area of knowledge on which they involve (also Crippen, 2005). More specifically, it has been found that teachers of history and social studies often deal with the question whether the main issue on the authentic learning procedure is related with the content or the process used on each particular occasion. It seems that the main question is one of both method and purpose. Moreover, teachers of history had been found to focus on content, presenting the past as a series of important people and events, while teachers of social studies tend to approach the past more thematically, drawing on students’ own experiences in order to promote social awareness, multicultural perspectives and academic skills. However, it should be noticed that the above differentiation as proved through the study of Glendinning has not been found to be a general accepted rule among teachers and professors of all educational levels. IId. Learning objectives, authenticity, curriculum and leadership – interaction and exchange of elements Traditionally, learning objectives are divided into three different categories: knowledge, skills and attitudes (Bloom et al., 1956; Krathwohl et al., 1964). A major criticism of this widely used set of categories is that they neglect the complexity of teaching and learning and the important interaction of the cognitive and psychomotor disciplines and are now regarded largely as inadequate as predictors of the complex nature of learning (Eisner, 1967; Stenhouse, 1975). Knowledge alone is no longer at the core of our pedagogy; a student’s acquisition of communicative skills, power, confidence, and ability to assert oneself are of equal importance. In addition, creativity, judgment and responsibility form part of the very valuable, complex skills, and necessary objectives required in higher education in this age of “supercomplexity” (Barnett, 2000). From a different point of view, Kemmis et al. (1983, 9) presented three ‘orientations’ to curriculum trying to tease out some of the differences between codes in education. In this context the following three orientations of curriculum have been developed: a) the vocational/ neo-classical orientation in which education is understood as a preparation for work; b) the liberal/ progressive orientation which takes a different view of education as preparation considering education as preparation for life rather than work. Moreover, it sees education as for the ‘whole person’ rather as instrumental; as a personal value to be developed rather than as a set of tools to be used in work; c) as for the third type of orientation, the socially-critical orientation, this is less sanguine about the improvement of society. In this context, if changes are to be applied in our social structures, its proponents claim, then individual virtue and individual action will be insufficient to bring them out. Moreover, according to the above proponents, education must engage society and social structures immediately, not merely prepare students for later participation. The above assumptions, mostly the third type of orientation, are in accordance with the views of McNeil (2006, 5) who stated that the main function of the curriculum is to provide each learner with intrinsically rewarding experiences that contribute to personal liberation and development. For this reason, the three essentials for the humanistic teacher – as seen by students are the following: Listens comprehensively to the student’s view of reality Respects the student Is natural and authentic, not putting on appearances Generally, it can be stated that leadership appears to particularly impact the quality of teaching in schools. Moreover, according to Schiff (2002) school leaders provide focus and direction to curriculum and teaching and manage the organization efficiently to support student and adult learning. Principals also evaluate teachers and make decisions about their classroom assignments. When classroom instruction is weak in underperforming schools, or when large numbers of teachers are teaching out-of-field in these schools, significant responsibility rests with the principal (Ingersoll, 2002). Quality school leaders, the evidence suggests, understand teaching and are respected by their staff. Moreover, these individuals are willing to hold themselves and others responsible for student learning and enhancing the capacity of teachers to meet this goal. As Elmore (2000, 16) states: The job of administrative leaders is primarily about enhancing the skills and knowledge of the people in the organization, creating a common culture of expectations around the use of those skills and knowledge, holding the various pieces of the organization together in a productive relationship with each other, and holding individuals accountable for their contributions to the collective results. Towards this direction Hill (2000, in [2]) also accepts that there is overwhelming evidence from the literature on school effectiveness and improvement regarding the significance of the headteacher in establishing a culture within the school that promotes and values learning and that embodies realistic but high expectations of all students and teachers. This implies a commitment to organisational learning (i.e. learning within the specific context of the school and its school improvement agenda). Heads must therefore be knowledgeable about ways of promoting organisational learning that enhance simultaneously the motivation of staff, and their competence and capacity to engage in a process of ongoing development and improvement. Effective leadership in online teaching and learning must involve a significant element of capacity building, so that leadership occurs at multiple levels in an organization in order to sustain, renew and transform teaching and learning for the future. However, building leadership capacity in online teaching and learning is an issue because it does not always happen. Individuals who have taught online may leave the organization and capacity is thereby lost. Online learning and teaching is affected, as finding staff to teach in online papers can be a challenge (Forbes, 2004, 1) III. Proposed policy for leading authentic learning Authentic learning and student-centred learning are chosen as key objectives for any educational project as they best promote student learning (McKenzie et al., 2002). In fact, Murphy (1997) describes authentic learning as a pedagogical ideal. It can be argued that “it is the task of education to take learners past being ‘merely well informed’ and on to being full-fledged professionals” (Davidoff, 1996, 47), with the skills and competencies required to perform at a highly professional level (Davidoff, 1996; Eisner, 1967). The importance of relating educational outcomes to the needs of society and industry is emphasised in the trends to problem-based learning, authentic learning and service learning. For the above reasons the design and the application of any project in the educational area has to follow specific rules and needs to be evaluated in accordance with particular values related with the specific social sector. IIIa. Action Research The first step for the design of any plan of action is the extensive research on the specific field of action. Burns (2000) sets out the stages of action research. The early stages revolve around the planning for action research: The identification of a general idea, in this case how students could be exposed to real life problems using authentic activities as an effective teaching and learning strategy. A literature review on situation cognition and authentic activities to find out what could be learned from other studies The research approach is planned, eg. resources, teaching method, allocation of tasks. IIIb. Application of the proposed ‘authentic learning’ – related scheme At a next level, the specific plan has to be put into action following a series of steps during its application: Identification of the particular issues examined during the specific research Distribution of the roles of participants – students Explanation of the role of teachers/ professors during the task Provision of the required material or of the resources where this would be available Analysis of the particular terms and rules of the project to the participants Estimation of the time required for the completion of the project/ provision for possible extensions IIIc. Results and discussion The completion of the project should be followed by the presentation and the evaluation of the data gathered through the theoretical and empirical research. It has to be noticed here that although there should not be strict rules for this step of the procedure (as each student has his/ her particular way of working) it would be valuable if there should be certain principles applied for all students no matter the quality and the volume of their work. Real world relevance Authentic activities should have real world relevance (Cronin 1993, Jonassen, 1991). Learning activities should match as nearly as possible the real world tasks of professionals in practice rather than decontextualised tasks (Baccarini, 2004). For this reason the findings of the applied project have to be criticized as of their relevance with the desired target and mostly with the content and the rules of the whole educational effort. Ill-defined activities Authentic activities are ill defined, requiring students to define tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity (Lebow and Wager 1994; Brown et al. 1989). Students are in charge of their own learning and must identify their own unique tasks. This means that they will have the opportunity to proceed to a first evaluation of the work assigned to them using personal views and thoughts on the given subject. Competing solutions Authentic activities allow competing solutions (Young and McNeese, 1993, Branford et al., 1990). They allow a range and diversity of outcomes open to multiple solutions of an original nature, rather than a single correct response obtained by the application of rules and procedures (Baccarini, 2004). Complex tasks Authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time (Lebow and Wager 1994, Bransford et al. 1990). They require significant investment of time and intellectual resources. However, the complexity of the tasks should be controlled in order to avoid subjects with limited or too extended area for research. Collaboration Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate (Lebow and Wager, 1994, Gordon 1998). In authentic learning situations, people work together (Gordon 1998). For students to succeed in real life problems, it helps if they have experience working in collaborative problem solving teams. Reflection Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect (Young 1993; Gordon 1998). Reflection refers to "those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations" (Boud et al. 1985, p.19). Its intention is to help students to value and make sense of their learning. Personal reflection is not related with the rules applied generally for all students participated in the scheme (i.e. to the interpretation of these rules by the participants) but refers mostly to specific issues that can be translated in different ways in accordance with the views of each participant (like the content of value or integrity). Integration Authentic activities can be integrated and applied across different subject areas (Jonassen 1991, Gordon 1998). Authentic activities encourage interdisciplinary perspectives and enable diverse roles and expertise rather than a single well-defined field or domain. The real world requires people to access a wide and diverse range of information in order to perform their duties (Baccarini, 2004). The importance of this assumption for the evaluation of the results of the specific project is that the interpretation of the particular results has to be based on the principles applied in the daily social activities, in other words the educational environment will have to be treated like a part of the society and not as a separate unit. IV. An example of use of authentic learning as the basic element of an educational strategy The case of Edith Cowan University The paper of Pagram et al. (2000) describes how computer technology was used to enhance an external (distance education) unit at a remote campus of Edith Cowan University. Authentic instruction principles and technology were used to enhance the learning experiences and accommodate the learning styles of a group of Aboriginal students completing an external mainstream course in a remote situation. More specifically, during 1999 the authors became involved in the design and delivery of a computer education unit to a group of students in their fourth year of the Bachelor of Education (Primary) in the Kimberley region (north west Western Australia). It should be noticed that before the start of the unit, many of the students had expressed reluctance in taking the unit because they believed it would be difficult as it involved the use of advanced technologies. By the end of the unit, most had acquired new enthusiasm for the use of computer technology in education. They could see the benefits of online technology on a practical level and how it could be incorporated into the most remote classroom. V. Conclusion The presentation and the analysis of the above issues related with the authentic learning and its interaction with leadership especially in an educational environment have proved that states can take steps to improve principal leadership development, especially in the areas of licensure, preparation, and professional development. Governors and other policymakers must act decisively and soon for states to grow a new generation of high-quality school leaders. By taking the steps described in this brief and by attending to the environment in which these school leaders will work, including pay and working conditions, policymakers can achieve this goal and make important progress to improve teaching and ultimately student learning in every classroom in their state [1]. It should be noticed however that the role of the state is often limited to a controlling function of any relevant activity and is not extended to an active participation on the design or the application of a specific educational project. As a result, the authentic learning as an active educational activity is often based on the initiative of individuals who formulate their plans of action based on personal views and experiences on the specific field. The above practice has been proved to offer a significant help towards the development of authentic learning throughout the years. References Andrews, D., Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents ‘black box’ of school reform. The international journal of educational management, 16(4): 152-159 Applefield, J., Huber, R., Moallem, M. (2000). Constructivism in theory and practice: Towards a better understanding. High School Journal. 84(2): 35-55. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from Expanded academic ASAP Plus database Aspin, D. (1996). Education and the concept of knowledge: implications for curriculum and leadership. In K. Leithwood & J. Chapman & D. Corson & P. Hallinger & A. Hart (Eds), International handbook for educational leadership and administration (pp. 91-134). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Baccarini, D. (2004). The implementation of authentic activities for learning: A case study. Teaching and learning forum 2004. Available online: http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2004/baccarini.html Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham Open University Press, 170–171 Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A Model, in Reflection: Turning experience into learning, Boud D, Keogh R and Walker D (eds.), 18-40, Kogan Page Bransford, J., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., Risco, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. in Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, Jones BF and Idol L (eds.), pp.381-413, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the Gap between Service and Learning. College Teaching, 45(4): 153-161 Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18: 32-42 Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods, Longman, Sydney Cleary, J. (2004). Innovating in Higher Education: Teaching, Learning and Institutional Culture. Australian Journal of Education. 48(1): 111-112 Conway, J. Authentic Learning and Technology. Teaching for Better Thinking, May 26, 1998 Crippen, C. (2005). Servant-leadership as authentic leadership: First to serve, then to lead. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Leadership & Ethics Conference, Authentic leadership, authentic learning. State College, PA: Penn State University Cronin, J. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 50(7): 78-80 Crowther, F., Kaagen, S., Ferguson, M., Hann, L. (2002). Developing teachers leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: 2002 Davidoff, F. (1996). Who has seen a blood sugar? Reflections on medical education. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians Davis, R. (1999). Can there be a Catholic curriculum? In J. Conroy (Ed.), Catholic education: inside-out/ outside-in (pp. 207-229). Dublin: Veritas de Souza, M. (2001). Addressing the spiritual dimension in education: Teaching affectively to promote cognition. Journal of Religious Education, 49(3): 31-41 Deubel, P. (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 12(1): 63-88. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from Expanded Academic ASAP Plus database Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn:  Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Eisner, E. E. (1967). Educational objectives: help or hindrance? School Review, 75(3): 250-260 Fink, D. (2005). Leadership for mortals: Developing and sustaining leaders of learning. London: Paul Chapman Forbes, D. (2004). Leadership As Capacity Building In Online Teaching And Learning. School of Education, The University of Waikato, Hamilton. Available online in: http://www.col.org/pcf3/Papers/PDFs/Forbes_Dianne.pdf Foster, L., Mcgovern, D., Ward, K. (2002). College Leadership: Learning from Experience. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3): 29-40 Glendinning, M. (2005). Digging into history: Authentic learning through archaeology. The history teacher, 38(2): 209-223 Gordon, R. (1998). A curriculum for authentic learning. The Education Digest, 63(7): 4-8 Greek, C. (1995). Using active learning strategies in teaching criminology: A personal account. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 6(1): 153-164 Greeno, J. (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think. American journal of education, 106(1): 85-127 Grégoire, R., Bracewell, R., Laferrière, T. (1996) The Contribution of New Technologies to Learning and Teaching in Elementary and Secondary Schools. Available online: http://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/fr/html/impactnt.html Gregory, M. (2002). Constructivism, standards, and the classroom community of inquiry. Educational theory, 52(4), 397-408. Retrieved Ebsco Megafile Premier 24 October, 2005 Hannan, A., Silver, H. (2000). Innovating in higher education: Teaching, learning and institutional culture. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press Haynes, B. (2002). Australian education policy. Katoomba, NSW: Social Science Press Herrington, J., Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3): 23-48 Johnson, K. A., Kunselman, J. C. (2004). Using the Case Method to Facilitate Learning. College Teaching, 52(3): 87-98 Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 31(9): 28-33 Jones, E. (2003). Balancing perspectives on mathematics instruction. Focus on exceptional children, 35(9): 1-30. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from Expanded Academic ASAP Plus database Kemmis, S., Cole, P., Suggett, D. (1983). Orientations to curriculum and transition: Towards the socially-critical school. Melbourne: Victorian Institute of Secondary Education Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S. & Masia, B.B. (1964). A taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II:Affective domain. New York: David McKay Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: an evocative context for teacher leadership. School leadership & management, 23(4): 421-430 Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:  Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Lebow, D., Wager W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23(3): 231-244 Luke, A. Teaching after the market: From commodity to cosmopolitan. Teachers College Record. 106(7), 1422-1443. Retrieved Emerald database 24 October, 2005 Luke, C. (2003). Pedagogy, connectivity, multimodality, and interdisciplinary. Reading Research Quarterly, July-Sept, 2003, 38, pp. 397-414. Retrieved 28 September 2005, from Expanded Academic ASAP Plus. McKenzie, A. D., Morgan, C. K., Cochrane, K. W., Watson, G. K. & Roberts, D. W. (2002). Authentic learning: What is it, and what are the ideal curriculum conditions to cultivate it in? Research and Development in Higher Education. Supplement to the HERDSA Conference, 25: 426-433 MacTavish, M., Kolb, J. (2005). How educational leaders can influence authentic learning: Moving beyond empowerment to engagement. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Values and Leadership Conference, Authentic leadership, authentic learning. State College, PA: Penn State University Masters, G. (2005). What outcomes do we want? ACER eNews. http://www.acer.edu.au/publications/newsletters/enews/05 enews34/0510 outcomes.html McNeil, J. (2006). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons Mims, C. (2003). Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, 6(1): 1-3 Murphy, E. (1997). Characteristics of constructivist learning and teaching. Retrieved from http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle3.html Newman, F., & Associates (Eds.). (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Nolan, J., & Francis, P. (1992). Changing perspectives in curriculum and instruction. In C. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in Transition (pp. 44-60). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Nuzzi, R. (1998). Cooperative learning and Catholic schools: A natural partnership. Momentum. February/ March Onosko, J., Newmann, F. (1994). Creating More Thoughtful Learning Environments in Mangieri, John N. and Block, Cathy Collins (ED.) (1994). Creating Powerful Thinking in Teachers and Students: Diverse Perspectives. Orlando, Fla: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc, p. 27-47 Ornstein, A., Hunkins, F. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (rev. 4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Pagram, J., Fetherston, T., Rabbitt, E., Learning together: Using technology and authentic learning experiences to enhance the learning of distance education students. Edith Cowan University. Paper presented at the Australian Indigenous Education Conference, Fremantle, 3-7 April, 2000 Parens, E. (2005). Authenticity and ambivalence: Towards understanding the enhancement debate. Hastings Centre Report, 35(3): 34-41 Peterson, R. (2005). In search of authenticity. Journal of management studies, 42(5): 1083-1098 Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books Piaget, J. (1974). To understand is to invent:  The future of education. New York: Grossman Piaget, J. (1975). The construction of reality in the child, Ballantine Books Priestley, M. (2002). Global discources and national reconstruction: The impact of globalization on curriculum policy. The curriculum journal, 13(1): 121-138 Reid, A. (1999). The national educational agenda and its curriculum effects. In B. Johnson & A. Reid, Contesting the curriculum. Katoomba, NSW: Social Science Press Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9): 1623-1640 Sarasin, L. C. (1999). Learning styles perspectives: Impact in the classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing Schell, J. W. Think about Authentic Learning and Then Authentic Assessment, University of Georgia. Available online in: http://www-tcall.tamu.edu/erica/docs/custer/custer3.pdf Semel, S. F. (1992).The Dalton School. N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing (American University Studies, Series XIV, Education, 34, XIX , 205 Shimabukuro, G. (2000). Teaching and learning in the Catholic school: grounded in sacred soil. In T. Hunt, T. Oldenski, T. Wallace (Eds.), Catholic school leadership: An invitation to lead (pp. 113-128), New York: Falmer Press Starratt, R. (2005). Authentic academic learning as grounded education for democratic community and social justice. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Leadership & Ethics Conference, Authentic leadership, authentic learning. State College, PA: Penn State University Stein, S., Andrews T and Isaacs G 2001, Incorporating authentic learning experiences with a business management course, Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Proceedings, Paper STE01249, Fremantle http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/ste01249.htm Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Books Tayler, M. R., Vega, Q. C. (2005). Incorporating Course Content While Forstering a More Learner-Centered Environment. College Teaching, 53(2): 83-88 Tochon F. (2000). When authentic experiences are enminded into disciplinary genres: Crossing biographic and situated knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10(4): 331-359 Twomey Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teachers College Press Wallis, C. (1995).The Learning Revolution. What Wondrous Things Occur When a School Is Wired to the Max. Time, Special Issue, 145(12): 49-51 Williams, D., Johnson, B., Peters, J. (1999). Assessment: from standardized to authentic approaches. In B. Johnson & A. Reid (Ed.), Contesting the curriculum (pp. 146-160). Katoomba, NSW: Social Science Press Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary. (1998). MICRA, Inc Young, M., McNeese, M. (1993). A situated cognition approach to problem solving with implications for computer-based learning and assessment, in Human-computer interaction: software and hardware interfaces, Salvendy G and Smith MJ (eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1): 43-58 Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press http://www.nga.org/cda/files/091203LEADERSHIP.pdf [1] http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7B/52/kpool-evidence-hill.pdf [2] Read More