Schoolwide reform projects often addresschanging instruction in order to better serveall the students in the school. In this article

we examine a model of instruction called authenticpedagogy that has been found to promote studentlearning in schools with a high proportion of stu-dents from low income families or students ofcolor.

Based on the work of Fred Newmann and asso-ciates at the Center on Organization andRestructuring Schools, authentic pedagogy hasbeen found to support the learning of students atrisk and to foster high levels of engagement andinteraction (Newman and Wehlage, 1995;Newmann and Associates, 1996). This form ofinstruction can be learned and implemented effec-tively in classrooms serving all students. While nota magic bullet for improving student learning, itprovides a model for looking at instruction thatemphasizes higher order thinking and studentlearning.

Authentic pedagogy as described in Newmannand Wehlage (1995) has several major componentsincluding:

© Construction of KnowledgeStudents engage in higher order thinking activ-ities in which they manipulate information andideas by synthesizing, generalizing, explaininghypothesizing or arriving at conclusions thatproduce new meanings or understandings. (p.17.)

For this feature one sees students truly engageideas and issues with some complex thinking.

This helps them develop for themselves newmeanings or deeper understandings.

© Disciplined InquiryStudents both make use of deep knowledgeand engage in substantive conversations. Deepknowledge involves addressing some centralideas of the discipline the students are studyingin order to explore connections and relation-ships that end in complex understandings onthe part of students (p. 17). In classes, studentsalso engage in extended dialogues andexchanges with teachers and peers about thesubject matter in ways that develop sharedunderstandings about ideas, issues, or the disci-pline.

For this feature of authentic pedagogy one seesstudents using some deep knowledge of theissue or topic to explore the disciplinary rela-tionships. This exploration is done throughintense back-and-forth dialogue and discussionof the topics, ideas or issues. These are conver-sations where the teacher assists, but does notcontrol the interactions.

© Value Beyond the SchoolStudents are engaged in subjects so that theymake connections between the substantiveknowledge they are developing and either pub-lic problems or personal experiences. (p.17.)

While some instructional reforms have called formore relevancy, authentic pedagogy requires thatstudents, on their own or through the flow of the

Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center Consortium–Region VI

Issue Number 3July, 1997

Looking at Instruction: Authentic Pedagogy

class discussion, understand and make significantconnections between what they are discussing andworking on and real problems or experiences out-side the classroom.

Authentic pedagogy can be found in manyclasses. Classes with these instructional featuresoften are places with highly engaged students,looking deeply at questions of relevance in the realworld outside the classroom, who engage in sus-tained conversation about complex issues. It is pos-sible for teachers to teach this way naturally. Butmore often, teachers will find that if they worktogether to develop and expand on these featuresin their classrooms through extended professionaldevelopment and collegial interchange they willbring authentic pedagogy into their classes.

For more informationNewmann, Fred and Wehlage, Gary (1995). Successful SchoolRestructuring. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development. This concise volumedescribes the features of authentic pedagogy and otherrestructuring issues in a clear and useful manner.

Newmann, Fred and Associates (1996). AuthenticAchievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality.San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers. This longer vol-ume details the full study of restructuring and authentic ped-agogy with attention to the importance of leadership,professional community, and authentic assessment.

This column is prepared by Kent D. Peterson, Ph.D., Senior Trainingand Research Specialist for this Center and Professor of EducationalAdministration, University of Wisconsin–Madison. He has writtenextensively for both scholarly and practitioner publications and workedwith schools and leadership institutes across the country. His currentbook is The Leadership Paradox coauthored with Terrence Deal.

The activities reported in this document were supported by the U.S. Department of Education under grant number #S283A50012-95Bfunded by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and by the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER), School ofEducation, University of Wisconsin–Madison. The opinions expressesd in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflectthe views of OESE or of WCER.