Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 1

Last week I took a look at the first two High Leverage Teaching Practices from  Glisan and Donato’s new book, Enacting the Work of Language Instruction. They were “Facilitating Target Language Comprehension” and “Building a Classroom Discourse Community”.

This week I’m taking a look another HLTP: “Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts”. This one is so large and controversial that it needs a discussion all its own.

Background Considerations

The role of authentic texts is controversial in second language acquisition circles.

The desire to have students be able to read authentic texts in the target language is universal and not controversial in the slightest. What is controversial is when and how to introduce authentic texts and how to use them in second language acquisition instruction. There are problems with even defining “authentic” in the context of second language acquisition.

So, a first step would be to define the term “authentic” in reference to second language acquisition.

Defining “text”

Actually, we need to back up a step further and define the term “text”.

For most people, a “text” is a body of written words, either on a sheet of paper, a computer screen, or some other medium. In education, however, a “text” is anything that expresses meaning and requires interpretation. That, of course, includes written words but also much more.

A text is anything that expresses meaning and requires interpretation

A graph or chart can be a text; a photograph can be a text; a sheet of musical notation can be a text; a sheet of dance notation can be a text; a mathematical expression can be a text. A conversation or monologue can be a text; a concert performance can be a text; a pantomime can be a text; dance can be a text. They are all expressions of meaning and require interpretation. A formation on a field can be a text. In football we often hear about quarterbacks being able to “read the defense”. For the quarterback (and other players), the way the opposing team takes their positions on the field is a text; they must interpret what that formation means and how it will affect what they do.

Now that we have an idea of how broad the term “text” is, what does that mean for a foreign language class?

It means that texts are visual, audible, and audiovisual. A reading in a textbook or novel is a visual text. A conversation or monologue is an audible text. A film is an audiovisual text.

Defining “authentic”

That brings us to the definition of “authentic”.

V. Galloway (1998. “Constructing cultural realities: ‘Facts’ and frameworks of association”. In J. Harper, M. Lively, and M. Williams (Eds.). The coming of age of the profession (pp. 129-140). Boston, MA. Heinle & Heinle. Quoted in Marjorie Hall Haley and Theresa Y. Austin. 2014. Content-based second language teaching and learning; an interactive approach. 2nd ed. (p. 40). Boston, MA. Pearson.) first provided a version of what has become the standard definition of “authentic” in second language instruction circles. Authentic texts are “those written for [sic] oral communications produced by members of a language and culture group for members of the same language and culture group.”

Often, this definition is given as “by native speakers for native speakers”. However, many in the profession argue that a learner can become a member of a language and culture group.

That argument raises a great many questions: How well does one have to know a language and culture to be part of that group? Who determines whether a person is part of a language and culture group? Can learners become members of a language and culture group in the early stages of acquisition?

Leaving aside those questions and considering Galloway’s definition, we still see problems.

In their book, Haley and Austin state in their chapter “Foregrounding Oral Communication”: “Research supports giving learners opportunities to learn language and content through participation in interpreting and creating authentic texts.”

Give students “opportunities to learn language and content through participation in interpreting and creating authentic texts.”

Unless we define “member of a language and culture group” as someone who has an interest in that language and knows at least one word of it (which no one does), then the above statement creates some cognitive dissonance.

Sure, language learners can interpret “authentic texts”, but can they create them? Yet, that is what many in the profession advocate. Students should have “authentic conversations” in the target language even at the earliest stages.

It seems to me that we have at least two different definitions of the word “authentic” being used.

When I attended the SWCOLT conference in Honolulu a couple of years ago, I sat in on an interest session during which the question of authentic texts came up. I questioned the definition but was reassured that Galloway’s basic definition still holds. I then asked how a non-native speaker teacher and a language learner could ever have an authentic conversation in the target language. The learner, at least, is not yet a member of the language and culture group; that’s why he’s learning, in order to become one.

The first reply was that this definition applies only to written texts. That reply shatters on the inclusion of “oral communications” in Galloway’s original definition. Then the response came that, essentially, there is more than one definition.

What about simplified language?

I found and find that unsatisfying and disingenuous. If we are going to use a term and base pedagogical practice on it, then it is imperative that we have a consistent definition of the term that applies to all contexts in which it is used.

In addition, I further asked about language that has been modified and simplified for the sake of first language learners.

Books written for children in their first language often use language that adults would not use. Vocabulary has been restricted; there is more repetition; the structure of the book is specialized. Are these books, then, not authentic texts?

When I was a child, my first Bible was a Children’s Bible. Obviously, it is not the original text (which brings up other questions; see below), and it is not even, strictly speaking, a translation of the original. Is it, therefore, not an authentic text?

A little bit later I was introduced to classic books through the comic book series Illustrated Classics. The one that I best remember was The Three Musketeers, but I read many others as well. These were adaptations of classic literature for emergent readers. Were they therefore not authentic texts?

My family had a series of children’s books called Tales from Many Lands. I learned myths, legends, fables, and much more through these books. Years later when I took a university course in Germanic Mythology, other students in the class were struggling to learn who the characters were while I was welcoming them as old friends. Because these were simplified and adapted stories from the Elder Edda, the Prose Edda, the Nibelungenlied, and other literature, were they therefore not authentic texts?

For that matter, does translation mean that the resultant text is not authentic? Is the King James Version of the Bible not an authentic English text because it is a translation from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?

If we accept that books written specifically for first language learners (native speaker children), as well as simplifications and adaptations of other books, are authentic texts, then why do we discount those same kinds of books written for second language learners as not authentic? There is, it seems to me, a serious inconsistency in this position, not to mention what smacks of elitism. (Something that has long plagued foreign language instruction)

In this context, Bill VanPatten’s work is an excellent corrective. Let’s start with a general definition of authentic. According to the online Cambridge Dictionary, authentic means “genuine”. The Oxford Dictionaries define the word as “of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine”. Merriam-Webster gives, “not false or imitation: real, actual”.

In his book While we’re on the Topic, VanPatten reminds us that communication is the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning for a purpose in a given context. The context of language instruction is the classroom (and school), and it is its own authentic context. Authentic language is language (texts of all kinds) that is informed by the communicative context in which it occurs.

Thus, a student’s language is authentic communication as long as it is part of context-delimited communication (expression, interpretation, negotiation of meaning for a purpose in a context). As a corollary, that means that skits and role-play activities intended to “practice the language” are not and cannot be authentic.

Teacher-adjusted language is also authentic as long as it is part of communication within the classroom context.

Authentic Materials

If “authentic” means any language that is part of expressing, interpreting, and negotiating meaning for a purpose in the classroom context, does that mean we should not be concerned about using materials produced by native speakers for native speakers?

“Jain!” as the Germans would say.

As far as acquisition is concerned, learners need to hear and read “authentic” language  in the sense that it is genuine, real language.

learners need to hear and read “authentic” language  in the sense that it is genuine, real language

This is a statement about which there is no disagreement. The technical term for this language is “Input”. The only further requirement is the learners understand it. Then it is “Comprehensible Input”. If students are not getting Comprehensible Input, they will not acquire a language.

Thus, learners need to hear their teacher speak the language almost exclusively, even if the teacher is not a native speaker. They need to read and hear texts that are understandable, i.e. level appropriate.

These texts do not have to be written by native speakers for native speakers (or even by “members of a language and culture group” for “members of that same language and culture group”). They just have to be real language created for a purpose other than “practice language” that students can understand.

Teachers and students can have authentic conversations.

Teachers and students can create authentic written texts.

Teachers and students can read texts created specifically for learners at their level.

All of these are authentic language when used for the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning for a purpose in a given context.

(BTW, the purposes of language are cognitive-informational, psychosocial, and entertainment.)

Native-speaker created materials

But what about those materials created by native speakers for native speakers? Is there no place for them?

Doch! Au contraire! ¡Al contrario!

Reading native-speaker created materials and conversing with native speakers is one of the goals I have for my students. I want them to be able to ask for and give directions. I want them to be able to talk about the weather, or sports, or a film. I want them to read signs, menus, brochures, labels, books, articles, etc.

When I have access to these products at an appropriate acquisition level for my students, I use them. For example, my students follow the German Soccer League, and we look at the results of the weekend’s games every Monday. I use the site www.kicker.de for the starting point of discussion. It is written by native speakers for native speakers, but it is readily accessible even to my first-year students.

But if I have not yet found an “authentic resource” that fits my need, I do not hesitate to use specially created materials, including things I create, things students have created, and books, articles, videos, etc. that other teachers or educators have created. Nor do I experience any guilt in doing this.

In 2011, I attended an AP Summer Institute. The presenter, Mary Ashcraft, gave us advice that I have taken to heart: “Of course, you use materials created for learners. These become the springboards to ‘authentic resources’ that would otherwise be inaccessible. Let’s not confuse the end with the means.”

Let’s not confuse the end with the means

Well, that was a long discussion, and I haven’t even gotten to looking at the actual High-Leverage Teaching Practice.

Come back next week for more.