Authenticity is a slippery concept. It’s a judgment about whether the self you present in public is true to your inner self. But our behavior is often socially influenced, so it’s in some ways challenging to fix on a single core identity. Who I am is highly context-dependent. I am a certain self at work, a certain self with my family, a certain self when I am alone. We are always filtering our personalities to conform to our social milieu.
If you dispense with the notion of having one true self, though, all sorts of authenticity are possible. From our readings this week, I particularly like the idea expressed by Cranton (2006) that there are several ways to form an authentic teacher–student relationship—”based on a respectful distance, collegiality, or closeness” (pp. 9–10). Being authentic, I think, is often conflated with being self-revealing, but Cranton argues that the latter is not necessary for the former.
If we agree that authenticity, for some people, can look like “establishing a professional, respectful relationship where students and teacher trust and like each other but do not share personal stories or go to each other for emotional support” (Cranton, 2006, p. 11), then online teaching can easily accommodate an authentic approach. It is certainly more difficult to forge close personal relationships in an online group setting. Still, online courses offer ample opportunities for collaboration and exchange of ideas, so if teachers and students approach their work with openness, authentic relationships will develop naturally over time.
An open mindset is crucial to authentic classroom relationships. Cranton makes clear that authenticity is not only about how you present yourself but also about your willingness to see others as individuals rather than relying on stereotypes or assumptions. Cranton writes:
In educational systems and within the culture of institutions, there are often socially constructed notions of what students are like: “students cannot read and write anymore,” “today’s students are lazy,” and “students are only interested in getting jobs.” An uncritical acceptance of these social norms leads educators to define the persona of “student” and then use this persona to form rules about how students behave. If the habitual expectations about how students behave are critically questioned, it is possible for teachers to transform their perspective on students until it becomes multifaceted and open to the differences among the human beings who are their learners.
An authentic relationship, then, can only develop when teachers and students both show up as and are perceived as a whole person. I’m not a teacher, but in my opinion, one of the best ways to do this is to share talk time. Each student brings a different set of experiences to the classroom and has different ideas to contribute to the classroom discourse. When teachers elicit student ideas instead of simply lecturing, they encourage students to put forth their authentic selves and enable students to be perceived as unique individuals rather than part of a monolith.
In a similar vein, teachers can create an environment that explicitly values students’ individuality and promotes authenticity by allowing students to tailor assignments to their own interests. Allowing students to pursue avenues of inquiry that they have a particular curiosity about or insight into makes for a more enriching experience both for the student and for anyone who reviews their work.
Finally, teachers can foster authenticity by providing detailed, individualized feedback. The most enriching classes I’ve had are the ones where I feel like the teacher cares about my ideas and sees me as someone with something unique to contribute. It’s almost impossible to create that dynamic without detailed feedback (especially in the humanities, where students’ work output is chiefly written). Thoughtful feedback is a gift and one of the best things we can do to promote authentic relationships in the classroom alongside students’ intellectual development.
