In my educational context, both didactic and authentic pedagogies coexist, serving complementary purposes in student learning and development.

The didactic approach is prevalent in traditional classroom settings, where the teacher is the primary source of knowledge and students are expected to absorb information passively. This is commonly applied in subjects like mathematics and science, where foundational concepts are best introduced through direct instruction. For example, our physics classes often begin with lectures and demonstrations where students take notes and review problem sets independently. This aligns with Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006), who argue that explicit instruction is essential when introducing new or complex information.

Conversely, authentic pedagogy emphasizes real-world relevance and student agency. In our social studies and civic education curriculum, students participate in inquiry-based projects such as documenting local history or proposing solutions to environmental issues in their communities. These activities reflect Newmann, Secada, & Wehlage (1995)’s model of authentic instruction, which includes higher-order thinking, deep knowledge, substantive conversation, and connections to the real world.

For instance, one group of students investigated the water quality in our local river, collaborated with local environmental NGOs, and presented their findings to the school board. This project not only applied academic content meaningfully but also cultivated skills such as teamwork, communication, and civic responsibility — elements central to transformative pedagogy as described by Mezirow (1997).

Balancing both approaches is essential. While the didactic method ensures clarity and structure, the authentic approach promotes engagement and transferable skills. Going forward, our school aims to increase the integration of authentic learning experiences, aligning with the movement toward 21st-century competencies (OECD, 2018), which include critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity.

References:

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12.

OECD (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 – The OECD Learning Compass 2030. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/