Trascendiendo el salón de clase: aprendizajes de inglés dentro y fuera del aula de alumnos de Enseñanza Secundaria
Ponencia realizada en la Cátedra Alicia Goyena, Montevideo, Uruguay.
14 de noviembre de 2019.
Descarga la presentación.
Ponencia realizada en la Cátedra Alicia Goyena, Montevideo, Uruguay.
14 de noviembre de 2019.
Descarga la presentación.
This is a summary of my talk Students’ Voices about English Language Learning at School and beyond at the SouthernCone TESOL Conference in Curitiba, Brazil. July, 17 – 20, 2019
Questions and suggestions about the topic are greatly appreciated as well as feedback on the presentation itself.
Thanks for having joined me at the event!
Does it ring a bell? Sometimes you end up discovering that your efforts and hard work were not enough for your students. If you are a school teacher, you most probably get to know about the issue through your former students’ new teacher or, because your new students make the same complaint about their former teacher.
This may happen to school teachers or to teachers who work at language institutions, where students change teachers every year. For private tutors, the issue may arise when the students quit for no clear reason.
You feel disappointed and may even ask yourself, what’s the point? What happened to all the efforts you devoted to:
How come? Well, last year I researched how high school students learn English as an L2 beyond the class (not published yet) and one of the findings was that:
What most students need in order to learn is to have a demanding teacher.
Does it sound odd? Well, in fact, it is not a new idea. Vygotsky claimed a long time ago that to learn a person must go beyond his/her current level of knowledge/competency/proficiency. If a person is always in his/her ‘comfort zone’ (sort to speak), no learning is possible. Learning occurs when the person is ‘forced’ to go beyond what he/she already knows (Zone of Proximal Development); in any other case, he/she would be just practising with his/her previous learning.
In the field of SLA, Krashen uses the idea of comprehensible input to explain how learning takes place. Learners should be exposed to input which is a bit further from their current level of knowledge to learn.
Your students won’t probably tell you that they want you to be demanding because they feel comfortable doing what they already know, but you may try talking to your former students in an informal setting asking them for their feedback on your teaching.
Besides, as important as learning is that students feel they have learned so they will feel confident about using the L2 and motivated to learn more.
However, how can a student feel that he/she has learned if nothing new is presented to him/her? What is new may be different to different students, so checking their prior knowledge is essential to offer the right challenge for each learner.
If you teach large classes, what you expect from all the learners may be the starting point, then you can suggest more challenging activities or contents for more advanced students. Let them choose their own learning path offering additional resources as needed.
If you need more ideas, you can watch Jim Scrivener’s talk Demand High
Have you ever been through this experience? Share your thoughts with us!
It is no secret that a motivated person can achieve whatever goal he/she pursues, sometimes in spite of physical or environmental limitations. And it is no secret that every now and then, teachers face one or two students in a class whose interest in what is being learnt is absolutely zero. Unfortunately, sometimes it is a whole class which is totally uninterested in learning an L2.
Let’s start talking about motivation by defining it:
The motivated individual
‘is one who wants to achieve a particular goal, devotes considerable effort to achieve this goal, and experiences satisfaction in the activities associated with achieving this goal’ (Gardner and MacIntyre 1993, p. 2).
If we analyse the definition above, supposing the definition properly describes the complex phenomena of human motivation, what we have can be simplified as follows,
A motivated learner is one who:
If you come across a class where every student has the desire, puts the effort and experiences satisfaction in learning the L2, then you are in heaven! Or you are teaching adults who are clear about why they are in your class or young learners who will learn anything you teach provided it is by playing.
For the rest of the teachers, lack of students’ motivation is usually a day-to-day challenge. Motivation in L2 learning is a complex phenomenon which can be defined in terms of two factors: learners’ communicative needs and their attitudes towards the second language community.
If learners need to speak the second language in a wide range of social situations or to fulfil professional ambitions, they will perceive the communicative value of the second language and will, therefore, be motivated to acquire proficiency in it. Likewise, if learners have favourable attitudes towards the speakers of the language, they will desire more contact with them.
Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert (1972) coined the terms
Research has shown that these types of motivation are related to success in second language learning. On the other hand, we should keep in mind that an individual’s identity is closely linked with the way he or she speaks. It follows that when speaking a new language one is adopting some of the identity markers of another cultural group. Depending on the learner’s attitudes, learning a second language can be a source of enrichment or a source of resentment. If the speaker’s only reason for learning the second language is external pressure, internal motivation may be minimal and general attitudes towards learning may be negative.
There are very good reasons to learn an L2, but for every reason, you will probably receive a good counter-argument when learners are unwilling to learn. Look at the examples I recall from my years of teaching,
Let’s go back again to the motivated learner,
We said that a motivated learner is one who:
William Glasser says, “we are born with specific needs that we are genetically instructed to satisfy” (cited in Sullo, 2007). Natural curiosity is built into our genetic makeup to help us best meet our basic needs, survive, and thrive as humans. These basic psychological needs are:
If the students enjoy the activities they do in class, they will soon start to devote more attention and effort to fulfil them and as both things happen, they will learn the L2 almost incidentally, which in turn will reinforce their desire to keep learning.
References and further reading
For a fuller treatment of the social psychological perspective on learners’ differences refer to Gardner (1985), Skehan (1989), and Ellis (1994, pp. 467- 560).
Church, E.B. (2003). Building community in the classroom. Retrieved July 24, 2015 from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/building-community-classroom
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language learning, 41(4), 469-512.
Dornyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42-68.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold Associates.
Sullo, B. (2007). Activating the Desire to Learn. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Summary of main points of ‘Activate the desire to learn’
How old were you when you started learning English?
Do you think you would be more fluent and accurate in English if you had started earlier?
Did you learn English ‘naturally’ or in a language institution? Is one way better than the other or does it depend on age?
Children, adolescents and adults have neurological, cognitive and psychological differences in the acquisition of L2. Children seem to be intrinsically better learners, while adolescents and adults have cognitive skills and self-discipline which enable them to utilize a larger volume of comprehensible input within the same exposure time period. On the other hand, older learners may be more greatly affected by the other factors in L2 such as motivation, anxiety and identity. The difference in the acquisition process demands different approaches to instructing learners of different age groups.
Age is easier to define and measure than personality, aptitude, or motivation. Nevertheless, the relationship between a learner’s age and his or her potential for success in second language acquisition is under debate.
Children from immigrant families eventually speak the language of their new community with native-like fluency, but the same does not happen to their parents. One explanation is that, as in first language acquisition, there is a critical period for second language acquisition.
The Critical Period Hypothesis suggests that there is a time in human development (before puberty) when the brain is predisposed to success in language learning. Developmental changes in the brain, it is argued, affect the nature of language acquisition.
It is difficult to compare children and adults as second language learners. In addition to the possible biological differences suggested by the Critical Period Hypothesis, the conditions for language learning are often very different.
The Critical Period Hypothesis has been challenged in recent years from several different points of view:
Patkowski (1980) found that age of acquisition is a very important factor in setting limits on the development of native-like mastery of a second language and that this limitation does not apply only to accent. These results gave added support to the Critical Period Hypothesis for second language acquisition.
Experience and research have shown that native-like mastery of the spoken language is difficult to attain by older learners. Nevertheless, there is some research which suggests that older learners may have an advantage, at least in the early stages of second language learning.
In the Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle study (1982), it was found that adolescents and adults learned faster than children in the first few months of exposure to L2. By the end of the year, the children were catching up or had surpassed the adults on several measures. Nevertheless, it was the adolescents who retained the highest levels of performance overall.
Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle concluded that their results provide evidence that there is no critical period for language acquisition. However, we should also consider that some of the tasks in the study (for example, sentence judgement or translation) were too hard for young learners.
Adults and adolescents may learn faster in the early stages of second language development (especially if they are learning a language which is similar to their first language) but young children eventually catch up and even surpass them if they are surrounded by the language on a daily basis.
Adults and adolescents can also make considerable and rapid progress towards mastery of a second language in contexts where they can make use of the language on a daily basis in social, personal, professional, or academic interaction.
The role of the critical period in second language acquisition is still much debated. Some researchers conclude that there are maturational constraints on language acquisition, but there are also others who consider that the age factor cannot be separated from factors such as motivation, social identity, and the conditions for learning. They argue that older learners may well speak with an accent because they want to continue being identified with their first language cultural group, and adults rarely get access to the same quantity and quality of language input that children receive in play settings.
Many people conclude on the basis of studies that it is better to begin second language instruction as early as possible if we seek the highest possible level of second language skills, the level at which a second language speaker is indistinguishable from a native speaker. But achieving a native-like mastery of the second language is not a goal for all second language learning, in all contexts.
In the chart below you will find a summary of the most important issues to consider when deciding on the most appropriate age to start learning an L2 in educational settings. These ideas apply to both formal and informal educational contexts (i.e.: school education and private L2 classes).
There is strong evidence of the existence of a Critical Period for L2 demonstrating the value of early exposure to the second language.
However, the initial point of learning cannot play the same role in a naturalistic and in a classroom context; the earlier may be the better but provided that it is associated with enough significant exposure, other important conditions include that exposure to young learners should be intensively distributed giving learners opportunities to participate in a variety of L2 social contexts.
In the end, more important than the starting age of acquisition is the amount and frequency of exposure to the L2.
Lightbown, P; Spada, N. (2001) Factors affecting Second Language Learning in English Language Teaching in its Social Context (pp. 28-43)
Muñoz, C. (2010). On how age affects foreign language learning. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers. Gala
Qin Zhao, A; Morgan C. (n.d.). Consideration of Age in L2 Attainment – Children, Adolescents and Adults. Asian EFL Journal
Some weeks ago I shared a post about the decision of using a coursebook (or not). If you haven’t read it yet, here is the link To use or not to use coursebooks? Suppose you have decided (or are compelled) to use a coursebook and you are free to decide which coursebook to use, or you have been using a coursebook for some time and you want to change it because it is out-of-date or you are just bored, what issues should you consider to make the best choice? There are thousands of coursebooks in the ELT market, which one will be the best fit for your students and your own teaching approach? Well, this post intends to help you in that choice.
If you have been teaching for some time, you probably know some of the coursebooks, especially those published by the most famous ELT editorials. Maybe some of your colleagues have recommended the ones they are most comfortable with (or the ones you should never consider!). Maybe, there are some limitations in the availability of some of the coursebooks and there are only certain books you and your students can access. Taking these considerations into account, choose two or three coursebooks to evaluate (of course you can evaluate as many coursebooks as you want, but the decision will be harder if you have to evaluate many options).
Remember that after choosing a coursebook and telling your students (and sometimes their parents) which one/ones they will need to buy, it will be troublesome to convince them later that they will have to buy another book (coursebooks are not cheap for some educational contexts) because the first one was a bad choice (your bad choice!). So, take time to evaluate your options so that you end up with the best coursebook.
Tomlinson and Masuhara’s (2004:1) definition of materials evaluation is: “Materials evaluation involves measuring the value (or potential value) of a set of learning materials by making judgements about the effect of materials on people using it”.
Teachers interested in the evaluation of ELT materials can find many frameworks and criteria developed by researchers and coursebook authors (Byrd, 2004; Cunningsworth, 1995; Harmer, 2007; McGrath, 2002; Sheldon, 1988; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2004; Williams, 1983). However, as McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara (2013: 52) state “(…) there does not seem as yet an agreed set of criteria or procedures for evaluation”.
In this post I will discuss two frameworks: McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara’s (2013) which attempts to provide a comprehensive framework which might be applied in the majority of ELT situations worldwide; and, Littlejohn’s (2011) framework which aims to evaluate the materials ‘as they are’, not the ‘materials-in-action’ (i.e. as the teacher thinks the material should be used).
McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara (2013) examine materials in two stages: an external evaluation (cover, introduction, table of contents) and a more detailed internal evaluation.
The external evaluation “(…) aims at examining the organization of the material as stated explicitly by the author/publisher by looking at: the ‘blurb’, or the claims made on the cover of the d/students’ book, and the introduction and table of contents” (op. cit.: 54). To achieve this the following information should be gathered (op. cit.: 55-58):
According to these authors, after this stage and having in mind the profile of the learners, we will have enough information to identify if the material is potentially appropriate and is worth a deeper inspection.
The internal evaluation seeks to find information about:
Then, an overall evaluation can be made considering:
However, these authors as well as Tomlinson (2004), state that the success or failure of a material can only be fully determined after a while and post-use evaluation.
Littlejohn (2011) does not take into account the ‘superficial aspect’ of materials or their content, his framework focuses on the methodology and the linguistic nature of the coursebook.
The author identifies three levels of analysis: objective description, subjective description and subjective inference.
In level 1 ‘objective description’, we will find the information about:
In the ‘subjective analysis’ in level 2, we analyse what teachers and learners will have to do in each task to test the claims made by the material (a task is defined by this author as any proposal made to students whose aim is bringing about the learning of the L2). For each task we need to identify:
Based on the previous levels of analysis we can determine the aims of the material and the basis for the selection and sequencing, the following step is to identify the teacher’s and the learners’ roles implied in it. Finally, a conclusion about the material as a whole can be done (subjective inference).
Littlejohn proposes a further step which is to analyse the teachers/students/institutions situation and their expectations from the material to decide its rejection, adoption, adaptation or supplementation.
What aspect should you consider to evaluate the coursebook itself? Littlejohn summarizes them with the following image
With the analysis of the material and the analysis of your teaching context in mind, you might have enough information to reject, adopt, adapt, supplement or use the material with its pros and cons and discuss them with your students (it would be a great source of discussion at least).
What is a project in an educational context? Can we work with projects in the same way we usually work? Is a project a longer version of a lesson? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of Project-based learning? Is it incompatible with traditional ways of evaluation? In this post, I intend to give answers to these questions acknowledging that more questions may come up from my writing.
Project work is defined by Ribé and Vidal (1993: 5) as “(…) a full implementation of a second or a third generation task”, but it is longer and more complex than a task, it is a macro-task. It consists of micro-tasks that can be expanded or reduced according to the negotiation carried out between the teacher and the students. The steps, length, process and product are pre-planned by the teacher, “but not totally predetermined” (Idem).
Grant (n.d: 1) states that Project-based learning is an instructional method centred on the learner that allows in-depth investigation of a topic. Having more autonomy, students take more responsibility for their learning process (Tassinari, 1996; Wolk, 1994; Worthy, 2000 in op. cit.: 1); “(…) project-based learning and the construction of artifacts enable the expression of diversity in learners, such as interests, abilities and learning styles” (Grant, n.d.: 2).
Project-based learning takes ideas from constructivism in which learning is seen as the construction of knowledge through interaction (Perkins, 1991; Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978 in op. cit.: 2), and constructionism (Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai & Resnick, 1996 in op. cit.: 2) which takes the notion that people learn best when they construct an artifact that can be shared and reflected upon (ibid).
From a language learning point of view, project work requires comprehensible language input (Krashen), comprehensible language output (Swain), the process of content and language learning, negotiation of objectives, and self-access materials (Ribé & Vidal, 1993: 6-7).
Project work is also aligned with Widdowson’s notion of ‘authenticity’: how the reader responds to a text (in Ball & Hockly, n.d.) See my post Reading in an L2: the idea of ‘Authentic Reading’ for more details on authenticity. From this perspective, a text may elicit an authentic response from the reader independently of its nature (i.e.: whether it is an original text in English or an adaptation of one).
Project work or Project-Based Learning (PBL) has many advantages such as,
However, some teachers may be overwhelmed by the changes necessary for its implementation. There are three main aspects of PBL that teachers and learners might find challenging:
To overcome these problems, it is important to begin slowly, a short-term project about a topic students are familiar with might be a good choice (Grant, n.d.:9). Working with group dynamics before starting the project is advisable. Assessment should provide constructive and authentic feedback; to achieve that, the most appropriate assessment tools are rubrics, learning diaries or portfolios.
In a project work, different types of assessment are needed to evaluate content, language, presentation, effort, attitude and cognitive development. Therefore, we will need both formative and summative assessment tools. Each aspect of the project can be evaluated from different points of view (Ribé & Vidal, 1993: 82). Common tools used in project work are,
However, as teachers usually must fulfil institutional requirements too, traditional testing can be included in the project and integrated as another way of evaluating students’ progress.
In this section, you will see how I planned a project about a tourism blog for teenagers or young adult learners. The name of the project is Show the world why your city is worth visiting. A collaborative blog.
Cover of the project
Below, you will see the first two pages of the Teacher’s notes to show you how I included the main and some of the instrumental elements of a project into a teaching plan.
*If you want to get the rest of the Teacher’s notes and the students’ handout for this project, you can buy it at Teachers Pay Teachers
Have worked with projects? Which projects are you proud of? Would you add more advantages to Project-based learning? And more disadvantages? What have you learned from Project-based learning?
If you haven’t worked with projects yet, what prevents you from doing so? Do you think it is too time-consuming? Do you think it requires too much effort and skills from teachers? Can all learners benefit from project work?
Share your thoughts with us!
BALL, P. AND HOCKLY, N. (n.d.). Developing Language Skills in the Classroom. Funiber.
GRANT, M. (2002) “Getting a grip on project-based learning: theory, cases and recommendations” [online], Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal a service of NC State University, Raleigh, NC, Vol. 5(1). Available at https://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/project-based.pdf [Retrieved: 19th February 2016]
RIBÈ R. AND VIDAL, N. 1993. Project Work; Step by step. Heinemann. England.
It is difficult to imagine a classroom around the world without any kind of ELT material. The most traditional and wide-spread examples of these materials are coursebooks. As Hall (2013, online) states “Textbooks are the main source of teaching ideas and materials for many teachers around the world; indeed, it’s almost impossible to imagine ELT without textbooks”. There are good reasons why many teachers use published coursebooks, amongst them:
However, coursebooks have also received criticisms on the part of researchers and teachers. Sheldon (1988:237) cites Greenall’s concept of coursebook credibility gap referring to the “(…) potential conflicts of interest in their creation, commercial exploitation, public assessment, selection, and ultimate classroom use”. In short, there are contradictions between educational aims and financial viability.
Following Sheldon (op. cit.), we can distinguish two levels of disappointment on coursebooks: on the level of design and on the level of theoretical premises. On the level of design, sometimes textbooks do not adequately describe the language level of the target learners (with terms like ‘beginner’, ‘starter’, ‘intermediate’); they have an inadequate handwriting to economize space in each page; there are omissions of course rationale; there are teacher’s books whose only value is their answer keys; the terminological looseness which makes it impossible to compare textbooks (op. cit.: 239); the presence of stereotyped images of English language users (focus on native speakers’ lives and language varieties) and the absence of images about poverty, disability, etc. In addition, as Hall (2013) adds, they may create a dependency culture in which the teacher just does what the textbook says. On the theoretical level, there may be a lack of cultural appropriacy; failure to recognize restrictions in many teaching situations; and, inconsistency with the pedagogical implications of current research on linguistic and language learning (Sheldon, 1988; Williams, 1983).
The criticisms mentioned above have important implications for those responsible for managing the learning processes, the teachers. Teachers have responded to these challenges in two main ways according to their training, experience and the teaching situation where they work: adapting materials or designing their own materials.
Littlejohn (2011) suggests that the following aspects of the target situation should be taken into account when adapting ELT materials:
Only after integrating this information with the material evaluation will teachers be in a position to decide if the material should be rejected, adopted, adapted or supplemented.
On the other hand, McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara (2013: 69) argue that the following principles should guide materials adaptation:
The authors distinguish the following techniques for adaptation: adding, including expanding and extending; deleting, including subtracting and abridging; modifying, including rewriting and restructuring; simplifying; and reordering (op. cit.: 70).
Materials writing should be guided by principles rooted in SLA research and successful teaching and learning practices. Richards (2005: 9-10) for example explains that the main underlying principles of contemporary versions of CLT to consider are:
Therefore, he notes that “The challenge for material writers is to turn these principles into lesson plans and teaching materials”
(op. cit.: 10) and adds that principles derived from research might not be adequate to all educational contexts, in such cases a situation analysis is necessary based on teachers’ expertise and their knowledge of students.
With regards to the authenticity of classroom materials, the author recognizes some issues that make real-world sources inadequate for some educational contexts:
Richards concludes that what is important in writing materials is that they provide the means of successful communication both within and outside the classroom.
From a linguistic-oriented perspective, Cook (1998: 12) suggests that SLA research has the following implications for materials design:
Some of Cook’s assertions may seem debatable, but it reminds us that materials design must be grounded in SLA theories. In addition, there are two points of views which are crucial to design good teaching materials: teachers’ knowledge of the learning context where the material will be applied and students’ voices about successful L2 learning practices. Unfortunately, these points of view are seldom taken into account by coursebooks authors and those responsible for materials choices in educational institutions.
There is not a correct answer, unluckily (as in most issues in ELT). Following Littlejohn (op. cit.) above, a positive or negative answer will depend on the educational context, including the educational institution, the aims, methodology and evaluation of the course, your teaching approach and beliefs about L2 learning, and your learners’ needs and expectations. The following infographic may help you to reflect on the appropriacy of using a coursebook in your teaching practice. You need to answer yes/no to each question and follow the suggestion in each case.
*Teachers Pay Teachers (This link is part of a referral program)
I hope the infographic helps you to reflect about the usefulness of a coursebook in your specific teaching situation, however, it is not intended to be a ‘recipe’ to decide whether or not to use a coursebook, instead, it is a help guide to think about the issues you should consider when making a choice. If you have more ideas on the topic please share them in the Comments section below.
COOK, V. 1998. “Relating SLA Research to Language Teaching Materials” [online], Available at https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19807 [Retrieved: 12th January 2016]
HALL, G. 2013. “This house believes that published course materials don’t reflect the lives or needs of learners” [online], Available at http://oupeltglobalblog.com/2013/04/05/this-house-believes-that-published-course-materials-dont-reflect-the-lives-or-needs-of-learners/#comments [Retrieved: 26th October 2015]
LITTLEJOHN, A. 2011. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In Materials Development in Language Teaching (2nd Edition). Cambridge University Press.
MCDONOUGH, J., SHAW, C., AND MASUHARA, H. 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT. A Teacher’s Guide (3rd edition). Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
RICHARDS, J. 2005. “Materials Development and Research – Making the connection” TESOL Convention [online] Available at http://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/materials-development-making-connection.pdf [Retrieved: 24th November 2015]
SHELDON, L. 1988. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal Vol. 42(4) pp. 237-246. OUP.
Reading is far from being a passive process, it is a constant process of guessing, hypothesising, anticipating and confirming, in which the knowledge “one brings to the text is often more important than what one finds in it” (Grellet, 1982 in Ball & Hockly n.d.). Consequently, the practices in which we involve while reading in a second language (L2) should resemble the practices of reading in the mother tongue (L1) if we intend to make the L2 reading experience an authentic one.
With regards to the approach to reading, there is a distinction between two main types of strategies that readers use when they are faced with a written text: top-down strategies and bottom-up strategies. Top-down strategies use macro-level cues to decode a text in order to acquire a more global understanding of its contents. These cues may include considering the layout of the text, making hypotheses and anticipating contents. Bottom-up strategies involve the decoding of the passage step-by-step from small textual elements like words or phrases. This process was for several years the traditional way of analysing a text and many courses are still based on this approach to reading.
The problem with an exclusive focus on bottom-up strategies is that the individual parts of the text are given more importance than the text as a whole. According to Grellet (in op. cit.), this might encourage reading all texts at the same speed, which might not be appropriate in all cases, and that there would be a reluctance to infer the meaning of sentences and paragraphs from what comes before the text. This author concludes that it is always preferable to start with the overall meaning of a text (top-down strategy), its function and aim, then move towards a more detailed analysis.
There is an important issue to consider when selecting texts for our learners and it is the idea of authenticity. Widdowson (in Ball & Hockly, n.d.) distinguishes between ‘genuineness’ and ‘authenticity’. Genuineness is a ‘characteristic of the text itself and is an absolute quality’ (op. cit.: 32), it is what teachers usually refer to as authenticity. On the other hand, his definition of authenticity is how the reader responds to the text. Not adapting a text would make it ‘genuine’ in Widdowson’s sense. However, a genuine text is not necessarily better than an adapted text. If the reader is allowed to respond as they would do it in real life we have what Widdowson calls an ‘authentic text’.
People read for many different purposes and depending on these purposes we may gist to check if the matter is relevant to us, for example when we read our friends’ post on Facebook; we may read to extract the main idea of a product ad to check it is what we are looking for; we may also read to infer the purpose of a literary text for a class assignment; it is also possible to read just for pleasure and while doing so we may find ourselves reacting to the text or creating mental images derived from it. Whatever purpose we may have for reading, the strategy we use will differ and the same should happen when we are learning to read in other languages.
According to Greenall and Swan (1986 in Ball & Hockly n.d.: 17-18), reading activities can be described as follows:
You can choose one or several activities from the ones mentioned above based on your students’ need regarding reading strategies and use it/them with any type of text, but how about assigning an authentic activity to deal with an authentic text and engage students in authentic reading? By authentic activity, I mean a reading activity which relates to the type of text used and how that type of activity is used in real life. Just think about this, what are the odds that you need to summarize an e-mail? Instead, you should probably need to focus on the subject, the author and the main information (who, what, when, how).
The concept of ‘action knowledge‘ (Barnes, 1976) can help us to support the idea of authentic reading. Students come to school with an amount of knowledge they have incorporated during their lives, they have unintentionally learnt many aspects of the world and how to behave in different types of situations. The same is true for their reading experience in their L1. Even younger learners, whose literacy skills in L1 are in the first steps, have grown up watching their family members reading different types of texts and what they do with them. They have watched their older siblings writing a summary of a History book and they have also observed that their siblings do not do the same while reading a comic.
We may also go back to Grellet’s words in the introduction of this post to support the idea of authentic reading, “(the knowledge) one brings to the text is often more important than what one finds in it” (1982 in Ball & Hockly n.d.). Surely, as a reader yourself you can think about types of reading activity that are ‘natural’ to a specific text type or genre, bring that knowledge and the learners’ knowledge into the class and enhance their reading experience both in the L2 and in the L1.
What types of reading activities would you suggest for a short story? For a piece of news? And for a blog post? Write a comment with your suggestions.
* If you want to read about the differences between reading in the L1 and reading in an L2 click this link to my previous post
Ball, P. & Hockly, N. (n.d.). Developing Language Skills in the Classroom. Funiber
Barnes, D. (1976/1992). From Communication to Curriculum. London: Penguin. (Second
edition, 1992, Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann.)