The Authentic Teacher: Pedagogical Awareness vs.

Content Awareness
We teach who we are (Palmer, 1998, p.2)
In my first year of teaching I was recommended to a school for the beginning of a maternity
leave. The department head and I were having a conversation in the laundry room as we prepared
for the afternoons classes. As we sorted through the laundry and got to know each other, we
landed on the topic of what route I took to become a home economics teacher. Before I could
even begin to explain where I had come from, she interrupted, well, whatever it is, it was
nothing like what I had to do in school. I actually learned food science, chemistry, biology, and
the like nothing like the basic nutrition courses they let people get away with to get into the
program nowadays. I replied with a respectful nod and a quick synopsis of my experiences and
education. Without an acknowledgment of my response, she quickly intervened, also, you
probably dont have any knowledge of textiles, I mean back then you also had to be trained in all
three areas, and the teachers nowadays dont know anything about textiles. Dumbfounded by
the stark remarks, I mentioned that I quite often experimented with textiles, to teach myself some
skills that I could see being important. Well, thats just playing, youll never get the true
techniques that way the kids wont be able to learn anything from someone who doesnt know
the right way of doing things. I smiled, completed the laundry, and went on my way.
(1) Expert content knowledge vs. Pedagogical content knowledge.
As much as I loved working at that school, that incident served as a tipping point for a shift in
my pedagogical philosophy. We had already scrutinized the teacher-as-expert model of
teaching in our undergraduate coursework, but I had not experienced any alternatives to this
model as a student or teacher. Up until that point, the transmission-teacher in me still believed
that I was required to be an expert: the one with the experiences, the one with the answers, the

one that could tell students yes youre right or not. This was a problem, particularly because I
also wanted to encourage more student authority and transparency in my classes. The tension that
existed in this case was between expert content knowledge (where a good educator is considered
to be the embodiment of content knowledge) and pedagogical content knowledge (where a good
educator is one who is able know what teaching approaches are appropriate for certain content)
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The department head, in this situation, valued expert content
knowledge in her practice. Although I see content knowledge as an important dimension of an
educators background, I find it rather presumptuous that one can be judged based on his or her
educational background. Rather, I believe that pedagogical content knowledge is far more
related to creating an authentic experience for our learners. Essentially, this aspect of education,
catering my teaching practice to my students as unique individuals, serves as a priority in my
practice a priority that could make my pedagogy authentic. Pedagogical content knowledge
takes into account how students can represent concepts, how much students already know, and
addresses students difficulties and misconceptions in order to further meaningful understanding
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). By having this teacher tell me that my credentials were subpar pushed
me to think: my path was different, yes, but all paths are different and students are all different.
What makes one educator more qualified than the other? What path makes one teacher a better
teacher than the other? This led me to question the current priorities in home economics and
what teaching methods would impact our students holistically rather than as robotic sponges of
content knowledge.

(2) Reflecting on teacher identity: teacher as co-learner

The biggest lesson I took from this and one aspect that I considered as a prerequisite to authentic
teaching had to do with reflecting on my identity as an educator. Was I an embodiment of
knowledge? Was I a transmitter of content? Was I a facilitator of inquiry? Or was I a companion
in learning? I believe wholeheartedly that in teaching we also teach who we are as people
whether we are authentic or not. I also believe that the deep knowledge of who we are, the
awareness of what influences us, and the impact we have on others is part of a hidden curriculum
that is often dismissed as unimportant within the focus and scope of our course content. I would
consider a contemplative reflection on who we are as people and educators, therefore, a portion
of an authentic practice as it becomes part of the curriculum whether we like it or not.
Researchers suggest that the unseen curriculum is a critical part of formal education (Shockley,
Bond, & Rollins, 2008). Course content is more than curricular objectives, prescribed learning
outcomes, and the mastery of a specific set of skills.
Students respond affirmatively to attempts to understand their personal and private hidden
curricula and are open to transforming some areas of it when such attempts are believed to be
authentic (Shockley et al., 2008, p.198). Those who neglect this humanistic part of teaching also
neglect the fact that students are in tune with this hidden curriculum at all times. Knowing
[yourself] is as crucial to good teaching as knowing [your] students and [your] subject (Palmer,
1998, p.2). In the case of my former colleague, the focus on the human aspect of teaching was
neglected. My identity as an educator had been boiled down to a series of letters that made up an
undergraduate degree. This point at the start of my teaching career inspired me to redefine part of
my teaching philosophy from teaching students how to make an ideal product based on a recipe
or follow directions to authentically exploring, with my students, how to create knowledge about

aspects of everyday life and how to navigate the fast-paced digital world that offers us content
and facts similar to what we encounter in the worksheets given out in home economics classes.
This shift encourages me to constantly cater class activities, lessons, and explorations to
students experiences and what is currently happening in their lives. I believe that meeting
students where they are in terms of content knowledge and interests is a part of my journey
towards an authentic practice. At the same time, I also believe that students should have the
opportunity to make their learning relevant to themselves. This creates a shift of my role as an
educator from being a mentor to being what Cranton and Wright call a learning companion
(2008). They use this term because they believe the word mentor implies that one is
experienced and one is less experienced (Cranton & Wright, 2008). A learning companion is
defined as one who helps the learner to recognize his or her own expertise and experience and
draws on that shifting the emphasis slightly away from being the guide and opener of doors to
being[one who helps] the learner deliver their words to the world and put the learner into the
conversation (Cranton & Wright, 2008, p.35). Ultimately, the learning is a shared experience
that benefits both student and educator, culminating in a shared curiosity that engages an
exchange of learning
(3) Boundaries of humanism in the classroom
The main concerns that come up in my conversations with other educators about the concept of
learning companions have to do with the boundaries between teacher and student, the
practicality of this type of teaching, and the pressures of course content and curriculum on this
pedagogical perspective. Although I do not have solutions for all of these concerns, I do have
guiding principles that seek to understand the curricular objectives, organization, and integrity of

an educator who chooses to be a learning companion with the aim of achieving an authentic
practice.
On the topics of curricular objectives and practicality, educators are often concerned that
they have tests to teach toward, or that they have prescribed learning outcomes that hinder them
from allowing students to explore content on their own. Essentially, the common assumption is
that a class that sees an educator as a learning companion is a class with no structure and
direction, and that students are not able to fulfill their own curricular needs without the authority
of an educator. My perspective after researching this topic is this: an educator that makes
personal and ministry objectives (e.g. in British Columbia, the Ministry of Education publishes
Integrated Resource Packages (IRPs) and Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs) for teachers)
transparent to students has the ability to scaffold a students personal inquiry to levels that allow
students to find authentic connections with a topic. This transparency is all part of the seamless
integration of research, teaching, and learning that can be woven with reflexivity, emotional
engagement and relationship accountability (Tanaka, Nicholson, & Farish, 2012). The ministry
guidelines exist and respecting the guidelines is a given part of being a public educator. Where
educators can be more resourceful and creative is in the way that they offer and present their
courses. In order to make course content relatable, researchers recommend that educators be
flexible and vulnerable with students, be honest about items that they do now know, model
reflexivity, share emotions, be transparent in their practice, and welcome learner autonomy
(Tanaka et al., 2012). I believe that this vulnerability could be misconstrued as a chaotic as some
educators may see vulnerability as a stripping of control and all authority however, the aim is
not to lose control of the curriculum; it is to control the walls that may be preventing students
from seeing how educators engage with content as reflective humans.

On the topic of professional boundaries, some of my colleagues have expressed that they
do not believe a students ability to perform in class has anything to do whether or not his or her
teacher has taken the time to get to know him or her. Rather, they attribute factors such as
genetics, family background, and special education designations to rationalize a students ability
to concentrate, engage with course material, and learn. In my classroom, my overarching mantra
has become relationships first. I believe that creating strong rapports with students eliminates
the qualities we may project onto students and allows us to teach authentically and individually.
In foods and nutrition classes, my students and I spend much of the first two weeks of classes
establishing a rapport with each other, creating a safe environment for risk-taking, and pushing
our social boundaries by partaking in brief icebreakers to break up lessons. As much as this may
sound like a summer camp, the feel-good aspect of these two weeks not only introduces my
students to the course content, the physical environment, the classroom culture, and the other
learners that they will be interacting with for the semester, but also introduces them to me as a
human being. I have developed a comfort in lowering a wall that used to stand between my
students and me a wall that formerly did not allow me to show my vulnerabilities, a wall that
separated student work and teacher work, and a wall that separated my life from theirs.
Palmer suggests that students quickly sense whether you are real, and they respond
accordingly (1998, p.7). Byrnes also states that teachers who are open to bringing their whole
selves to their work with learners connect their inner life with their roles as a teacher (2012,
p.24). There is power in being genuine, and with this also comes the ability to increase comfort
and authenticity in the classroom. There is little power, as Palmer suggests, with law or technique
true connections and learning do not exist because of rules and coercion (1998). This
prioritization of connections with students and the subject area opens up avenues for educators to

also connect with their subject areas in different ways to which they may be accustomed. When
educators find coherence between their methods and themselves, only then can they show that
they have power in the classroom (Palmer, 1998). One question that I constantly ask myself is,
Who am I as an educator? I admit that I am still searching for an answer to this question, and I
dont expect to find it soon. What I want to search for, however, is my authenticity as an educator
what part of my inner life can I bring to my work in the classroom? Byrnes asserts that
teaching with integrity involves congruence between a persons inner life and their external role
as a teacher (2012, p.24). My aim is to connect with students as a human who cares about
making authentic connections with them and their communities. My aim is also to be an educator
who cares about knowing who I am so I can know who my students are. Finally, I want the
passion I have for my subject area to fuel passion in my students work.

References
Byrnes, K. (2012). A portrait of contemplative teaching embracing wholeness. Journal of
Transformative Education, 10(1), 22-41.
Cranton, P., & Wright, B. (2008). The transformative educator as learning companion. Journal of
Transformative Education, 6(1), 33-47.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life.
John Wiley & Sons.
Shockley, K. G., Bond, H., & Rollins, J. (2008). Singing in my own voice: Teachers' journey
toward self-knowledge. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(3), 182-200.
Tanaka, M. T., Nicholson, D., & Farish, M. (2012). Committed to transformative inquiry: Three
teacher educators entry points into the mentoring role. Journal of Transformative
Education, 10(4), 257-274.