Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 2

Last week as we began looking at the High-Leverage Teaching Practice “Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts”, we took a look at what the terms “authentic” and “text” mean.

Glisan and Donato in their book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction also try to give a definition of the term “authentic texts”. They write that students develop language and cultural proficiency through interesting talk and text in the target language. (p. 65) This is another way of saying that language learners acquire language through comprehensible input that engages them. In the classroom setting, the teacher is the primary provider of comprehensible input, especially in the early stages of instruction. If the teacher is not a native speaker – and the learner decidedly isn’t – how can they have “authentic” conversations according to the definition provided by Galloway and generally used throughout the language teaching community, i.e. “by members of a language and culture group for members of the same language and culture group”?

Glisan and Donato attempt to surmount this difficulty through a more complex and nuanced definition. They stress the need for students to attend to language “in the form of authentic texts – i.e., texts, be they printed, audio, or video, that are created for various social and cultural purposes by and for monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual users of the TL and various other cultural groups. The term authentic, when referring to foreign language classrooms, also implies that the text has not been simplified or edited for the purpose of foreign language instruction. Additionally, authentic texts, in the way the term is used in this chapter, have a sociocultural purpose (e.g. to inform, entertain, argue, teach a life lesson) that goes beyond simply providing contrived, artificial, and unmotivated examples of the target language to learners, as is the case in most textbook material.” (p. 65)

… authentic texts … have a sociocultural purpose … that goes beyond simply providing contrived, artificial, and unmotivated examples of the target language to learners, as is the case in most textbook material.

Upon reading this definition, my first reaction was “huh?” Perhaps I am missing something, but the following statement seems to be somewhat addled. Let’s try to unpack it.

To be “authentic”, texts must pass the following tests, according to Glisan and Donato:

1. They must be created “by and for monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual users of the TL [Target Language] and various other cultural groups.” Up to the abbreviation “TL”, this reads like a continuation and adaptation of Galloway’s original definition, i.e. it is still by and for users of the Target Language, only now those users can be monolingual, bilingual or multilingual. Gone is the requirement that they be “native speakers”. Gone is the requirement that they be “members of the target language community”. Now they must be “users of the TL”.Does that mean that my first-year students, as soon as they begin to “use” the target language for communication – to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning in the target language for a purpose in a given class – are able to create authentic texts? It would seem so.This conclusion is reinforced by the rest of the sentence: “and various other cultural groups”. Thus, the first requirement for an “authentic text” is that it be created “by and for … users of the target language and various other cultural groups.” [emphasis mine] My students certainly qualify as “various other cultural groups”.

   If this is not an editing error, Glisan and Donato have aligned themselves with  Bill VanPatten in defining “authentic” in terms of genuine communication in a given context. (Remember that the classroom is a genuine context.)

2. For Glisan and Donato, an authentic text “has not been simplified or edited for the purpose of foreign language instruction.”At first glance, this requirement seems to rule out a number of practices that are widespread, such as “embedded reading”, as well as any sort of simplified or edited text.But is that a correct interpretation?

   Let’s allow the authors to elaborate.

   In the same paragraph as the quote above, Glisan and Donato further state that “authentic texts prompt goal-oriented communication in cultural contexts as opposed to providing only opportunities to ‘practice’ the language.” (P. 65) [emphasis mine] They later clarify their opposition to these “simplified and edited” texts as follows: “Unfortunately, some language textbooks still include unauthentic texts that feature unnatural use of vocabulary and grammar …” (P. 66)

   In these two statements, we see agreement once again with VanPatten’s insistence that language is authentic when it is used for the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning for a purpose [other than learning a language] in a given context. VanPatten looks at “authentic” from the perspective of context and communication. He reminds us that “the classroom is its own authentic context. It has real participants in a real setting.” (2017, p. 72) These real participants in a real setting “are not native speakers, they are not in a native speaking environment, and the classroom si not a second language cultural context. Language use is authentic only if informed by the communicative context in which it occurs.” (2017, p. 72) Thus, teachers should evaluate potential materials by starting with the question, “To what extent is this incorporation [of materials] authentic to the classroom context itself?” (2017, p. 72)

   Additionally, studies show that native speakers automatically adjust their speech to their listener, simplifying and selecting vocabulary that facilitates communication. That practice does not thereby render the speech inauthentic, since native speakers do it for other native speakers (like children) as well as for language learners.

   From all of this, we see that the objection is not truly an objection to simplification per se but to simplification and editing for the purpose of language instruction. Using a text for something other than communication renders even the most “authentic” text inauthentic.

   Let’s go back for a moment to those books I mentioned last week, the ones that native speakers simplify for their children. What is the purpose of the simplification? Is it to let children “practice language”? In most cases, assuredly not (though there are some texts written for this purpose, unfortunately). These texts are written to communicate something to the children (we’ll talk about purpose in a moment), and the texts are simplified and edited so that the material to be communicated is understandable to the audience.

   Thus, as long as the modifications I, the teacher, make to texts written, oral, or audiovisual are made for the purpose of communication – or even if I create my own texts for the purpose of communication – rather than for “practicing language”, then those texts can (and should) be considered authentic. At least they pass the second of Glisan and Donato’s three tests.

3. Finally, Glisan and Donato maintain that a text must “have a sociocultural purpose” to be authentic. (2017, p. 65)These purposes include “inform, entertain, argue, teach a life lesson”, and more. Here, I believe VanPatten’s larger categories are more helpful. The communicative purpose will be cognitive-informational (inform, teach a life lesson, argue a point, etc.), psycho-social (e.g. establish, develop, and maintain relationships), or to entertain. (2017, pp. 8-11) Language that has no purpose is not communication.

Language that has no purpose is not communication.

Beyond the consideration of “authentic”, texts that we use in the classroom must also be context appropriate (i.e. suited to the context in which the are used – in my case the public school classroom), age appropriate (I deal with students in grades 9-12), and appropriate for the linguistic level of the learners. (Glisan and Donato, 2017, p. 68)

While I will continue the exploration of Enacting the Work of Language Instruction in subsequent posts, the immediately preceding paragraph brings me to a realization and a challenge.

The realization is that the history of language instruction in the United States has left us bereft of texts that fit the criteria for use in the classroom. Most texts that are by and for native speakers or “members of the language community” are not appropriate in one or more of the ways mentioned (i.e. context, age, and linguistic level). Most texts in commercial textbooks are written with the purpose of “teaching the language” rather than communication. (See above) What remains is far too little.

The challenge is to write texts that are authentic because they are context appropriate, age appropriate, and linguistic-level appropriate

The challenge is for language teachers who truly believe that communication via Comprehensible Input (i.e. expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning for a purpose in a given contact) is the way that we acquire language to start writing materials that are authentic because they are context appropriate (being informed by the classroom context in which we teach), age approach (being informed by the real participants in our classrooms), and linguistic-level appropriate (being informed by the need for comprehensible input).

Who will take up the challenge with me?