Ok. So my title is a bit wordy, but this really is what Guariento and Morely (2001) discuss in their article "Test and task authenticity in the EFL classroom" and it is something I argue with ELL/ESL/EFL teachers all the time. First of all, the question arises, what makes a text or task truly authentic. Well Guariento and Morely (2001) start their article with a queste from Little et. al. (1998) that states that an authentic text is one "created to fultil some social purpose in the language community in which it was produced" (347). Well, ok, this is the definition of "discourse" really, but is it the definition of an authentic text?
My argument would be that we cannot fully create an authentic environment in the classroom. We can mimic authentic environments, but we cannot actually create a post office, restaurant, rental office, etc in our classrooms. No matter how well the activity is structured, some portion of the activity is controlled and guided practice.
Part of the problem, as Guariento and Morely (2001) point out in attempting to create an authentic learning task is the issue of task difficulty. This is very problemmatic with beginning language learners. Let's take the task of ordering in a restaurant. The instructor can teach the beginning students 20 new words associated with ordering in a restaurant. The teacher can teach the basic script of how to take an order (server role) and how to give an order (customer role). But the script will be limited due to the student's current vocabulary and current ability to understand and use questions and verb forms. The teacher can set up a mock restaurant in the classroom and assign students the roles of servers and customers. The students can role play taking and giving orders. There can be menus and table settings and even food and drink. But no matter what, the students are still performing a task in a controlled environment, not a truly authentic environment. If the teacher took the students to a restaurant, they may find themselves in a situation that is not like what they learned in the classroom and they may not be prepared to function in that environment.
The thing is this: The controlled, guided practice that occurs in the classroom is OK - in fact, it's GREAT! It is exactly what some students need because they are beginners. This is something that I have thought all along and the coolest part is that Guariento and Markley (2001) agree! In their conclusion they state, "In this paper we have argued that the authenticity if texts (genuineness) may need to be sacrificed if we are to achieve authentic responses in our students" (352). That is, the task may not seem very authentic, but the language the students' produce is - because the language is new for them and they really are speaking and learning.
This article really made me happy. There's so much more to the article and so much more can be said, but for now I'll let you chew on what I wrote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Tara,
ReplyDeleteYou make a very valid point that any task that occurs in the classroom can only mimic authenticity. However, like you and the authors reiterated, the production of new language is valuable in the learning process. Anytime a task is as close to authentic as possible it is better than skill and drill lessons any day, even if you aren't in the actual restaurant or post office, etc. The key is engagement!
Tara,
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your comment that it is OK that students begin language learning in a controlled environment. As anyone who has ever learned a language knows, it is scary to begin speaking another language. Students, at least the younger ones I know, often avoid speaking unless they are especially confident or silly. Thus, if a teacher can create a safe environment in which a student can speak, even if that environment isn't 100% authentic, I encourage it! The students can later transition to more authentic environments later when they know more.
On another note, I just read the comment you left on my blog about how ESL/EFL teachers have been doing more interactive/genuine activities for a long time. I find this really interesting. Perhaps foreign language education in the US has taken so long to emerge from old-school models of drill and memorization because it was based on ancient precedents, the teaching of Latin and Greek in schools. Naturally, as students learned Latin and Greek, they were never going to be expected to communicate in those languages, only read and translate texts from them. Thus, old instructors had no need to create more vibrant modes of teaching. I'm glad that we're now trying to separate ourselves from this model! I will say too that my colleagues who teach Latin, while still not focusing on spoken Latin, have made great strides to make the language and culture more approachable and fun through clubs and intermural activities.