The Collaborative Redesign of ‘Authentic’ Technology-Enhanced Learning: Analysis of a Change Laboratory Research-Intervention in Engineering Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thought this was a good paper with a neat use of activity theory to identfy and discuss tensions around the perceived authenticity of 'academic' activity relative to the wider workplace.  I feel that the study is successful and could be published as it is. However, one aspect the authors might wish to draw out is the philosophical tensions which underlie any concept of 'authenticity' (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/).  Some would say all notions of inauthenticity are bogus, since one is always oneself.  You could also argue that, in either a work or study environment, no-one is 'truly' acting authentically as they are obliged to follow certain rules and protocols, power strutures, etc.  Now, I appreciate that these waters get deep pretty quickly and you might not want to get into these kinds of issues, but perhaps there's some sharpening to be done about the specific idea of authenticity you are working with.  For instance, is it about the authenticity of the learning experience?   Whether those involved really feel like themselves in these contexts?  How the technologies are used?  &c.  Perhaps being as clear as possible by what is meant by authenticity - or at least acknowledging wider debates/complexities - would add the finishing touch to this contribution. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, which we appreciate very much. we have referred to the work of Ferrera in addressing your valued suggestions, adding the following content.

To open the second paragraph of the introduction, at Line 37:

Authenticity has a paradoxical status in social life and in HE. Some philosophical schools would regard the notion of authenticity as undeserving of the attention of educational researchers, since social beings are always themselves, while others place importance on the authentication of those around us, through the "alignment of inner state and outer conduct" [2], p. 32. In our current paper we examine material environments of work and learning, where normative technologies, policies, and power structures inevitably influence authenticity in learning, and where authenticity relies on the accounts of others.

And then at the discussion, at Line 967 (which becomes Line 974, due to the added text above):

We opened this paper with an acknowledgement of the philosophical tensions and debates which must be acknowledged in any discussion of authenticity, positioning our contribution amongst a backdrop of material social conditions, mediated by technologies and social circumstances. For us, authentication and authenticity in learning require interactions with others and mutual recognition, where "an identity that no one can ever recognize cannot be an authentic one" [2] (p. 33).

Thank you, again, for helping us to strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The collaborative re-design of ‘authentic’ technology-enhanced learning in engineering higher education, using the Change Laboratory methodology, involves analyzing and transforming teaching practices to integrate real-world authenticity with technological tools. 

The Change Laboratory approach originates from Activity Theory and supports systemic transformations through collaborative efforts.

This article is a well-written and excellent one!

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, which we appreciate very much. Since the draft, we have strengthened the manuscript in response to another reviewer's comments, adding some acknowledgement of the contested status of 'authenticity' as a notion itself. We include it here for completeness. We have referred to the work of Ferrera, adding the following content.

To open the second paragraph of the introduction, at Line 37:

Authenticity has a paradoxical status in social life and in HE. Some philosophical schools would regard the notion of authenticity as undeserving of the attention of educational researchers, since social beings are always themselves, while others place importance on the authentication of those around us, through the "alignment of inner state and outer conduct" [2], p. 32. In our current paper we examine material environments of work and learning, where normative technologies, policies, and power structures inevitably influence authenticity in learning, and where authenticity relies on the accounts of others.

And then at the discussion, at Line 967 (which becomes Line 974, due to the added text above):

We opened this paper with an acknowledgement of the philosophical tensions and debates which must be acknowledged in any discussion of authenticity, positioning our contribution amongst a backdrop of material social conditions, mediated by technologies and social circumstances. For us, authentication and authenticity in learning require interactions with others and mutual recognition, where "an identity that no one can ever recognize cannot be an authentic one" [2] (p. 33).

Thank you, again, for helping us to strengthen the manuscript.