On Authenticity: What Criteria should we use and where they should be from?

This article originated from Ania’s lecture on Monday, September 17, 2001. Regarding Ania’s question: Was the task of creating the radio program an authentic task?

Before I attempt to answer the above question: Yes or No or Maybe, First I should like to look into some definitions of the term ‘authenticity’.

Authenticity: Definition

According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, (cited in dictionary.com), in everyday language:

Authenticity is a noun meaning ‘ The quality or condition of being authentic, trustworthy, or genuine.’

However, such a definition tells us so little about authenticity in SLA.

Therefore, I should like to begin by quoting those of better authorities in the field of applied linguistics.

Taylor (1994) has gathered some definitions of authenticity of text or teaching materials as follows:

An authentic text is a stretch of real language, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real audience and designed to convey a real message of some sort. (Morrow, 1977, p. 13)

Authentic texts (either written or spoken) are those which are designed for native speakers: they are real texts designed not for language students, but for the speakers of the language in question. (Harmer, 1983, p. 146)

A rule of thumb for authentic here is any material which has not been specifically produced for the purposes of language teaching. (Nunan, 1989, p. 54)

Wilkins (1976, p. 79) talks in similar vein about authentic materials as being materials which were originally directed at a native-speaking audience.

According to Widdowson (1979) authenticity is not inherent in language but is a foundation of appropriate response and is realised when sender and receiver engage in interaction mediated by the language. In short, he believes that one does not recognize authenticity as something there waiting to be noticed, but one realizes it in the act of interpretation (p. 165).

In a similar vein, Hall (1995) is of the opinion that it is not, primarily, the materials themselves which have to be authentic; it is rather, the response to the material. In short, what is done with the material should be authentic.

Kenney (1989, cited in Hall 1995, p. 12) classifies the student’s response to the text or content into three levels:

- the empirical

- the interpretational

- the socially validated

The empirical level is the most basic level. The students act on the text itself. Most teachers are familiar with it. For example, most comprehension questions are under this level. The interpretational level moves the student into another step. At this level, the student addresses the meaning of the text in relation to himself. It involves assimilating new knowledge into the structure of information in the student’s head or world. Here the content is examined in relation to existing knowledge structure and belief system of the student. The last level deals with the validation of the assimilated knowledge. Kenney suggest that what has been interpreted by the student needs, to be authentic, to be validated by others: the social or group.

McCarthy (2001), similarly, proposes a new notion of authenticity.

He suggests:

“ What we really need to test authenticity and relevance is learners’ own reports. If learners find such texts fascinating and a challenge to imagination, then what is relevance is not the texts claimed to be real samples of the language, but their claim to be more socially and culturally engaging than bland and lifeless sentences and drills.”

Based on the material authenticity discussed by Widdowson and McCarthy, authenticity lies beyond the surface or face validity.

Every material, be it man-made or nature-made is authentic to a certain extent, which is, after all, up the interpretation of the students. So authenticity is subject to individuals’ interpretation. What is considered authentic for me maybe unauthentic for others, for my interpretation and others are different, and they will never be the identical.

The above notions of authenticity have been narrowly defined, and they are dealing with the texts, be they spoken or written. We have seen, for example, a teacher using local daily newspapers as teaching aids, so the students can learn English from the authentic material. Many times, we do not ask ourselves of its real value.

Back in Thailand, I used to ask my students to listen to the radio programs in English or read English language newspapers. I think they could develop their listening skill and reading skill from the real-life texts. Though I was not quite sure that what I have done is authentic, but under institutional constraints and others, I believe I have tried my best.

I am sure many English teachers, up to 95 %, have done something similar to what I have done. There is no doubt about that. Most teachers regard such texts as authentic ones. Many of them are of the opinion that adjusting the texts to suit the students’ needs and competence is something workable and more desirable. After all text authenticity is a matter of degree. In remember seeing, in Business English, for example, one of my colleagues, Austin, was looking for business news from English language newspapers like The Nation or Bangkok Post. He believed that such authentic material would make things that the students were learning more relevant to their life.

The real material has limitations and it cannot guarantee that using such a thing will bring about authentic learning.

Having the students doing a task or an activity, too, does not mean that authenticity is going to happen.

Millet's observations of teachers in the classroom (TESOL Matters, October/November 1997, cited in Karpova 1999) tell him that their "awareness of students is somewhat in the periphery rather than at the center of their teaching."

Millet claims that teachers use wonderful creative activities but are not looking at how they can help students do the activity better and what the students can or cannot do. Teachers are simply moving them through activities, assuming they are learning.

According to Millet, it is important that teachers should ask themselves important questions such as "What are the students actually doing? Are the students using language more effectively at the end of the activity than they were at the beginning?"

Millet’s study reveals common things we have witnessed in most language classrooms in which tasks or activities are often impose by the teachers to the students. The power is still within the teacher’s hands. Then what makes tasks authentic? The text doesn’t guarantee anything; yet many people somehow believe it to be authentic. In fact all texts, be they in the written mode or spoken mode, are made by men. The task doesn’t guarantee authenticity either. Having the students write letter to pen pals in the US doesn’t not necessarily mean that the task has been authenticated. What are the criteria, then?

The Radio Project

As for the Radio Project, we as students have produced, by pre-recording, a radio program lasting for approximately 1 hour. In addition, we have also pre-recorded 4 advertisements to introduce the program to the listener, each lasting for 40 seconds.

The project, therefore, is the task. It is the task of producing radio programs in English. The audience is the people in ACT. It is real, at least in my perception, and I believe other students are feeling the same.

- The audience is real.

- The broadcast is real.

- The equipment used to do the recording is also real.

All are authentic, it seems. I am just thinking of what is unreal or unauthentic, in terms of the material or the task.

Why do I join the radio project? I do it because I like it or because I have no other choices. I know some of my classmates have to do it. I asked myself. After a few minutes of reflection, several reasons have become eminent:

- I would like to be a good student.

- I would like to learn something new, something relevant to my long-term plan.

- I would like to have friends.

- I would like to improve my English.

- What I have been doing is a part of my study plan that I have submitted to the higher education committee of the university of Canberra.

- I would like to familiarize myself with the new learning environment.

My perception is that the project is thus meaningful to me. It does matter for me and I am confident that others are feeling the same. I bear in mind well that the project is just the pretext of something else. Such a thing, according to Anai as the lecturer, is the interpretation or rationalization or theorization of the project so that we as students can conceptualise things that we have been doing. So what we have been doing is a stepping-stone to something else, something more profound and essential.

So what we are supposed to learn might have not been explicitly taught, which is something interesting and cleverly planned. The task is something that allows the learners to find the relationship of the practice and the theory. It seems to me that the real challenge is the justification of the things we have been doing: the interpretation.

What makes tasks authentic? What authenticity criteria should we select?

According to Ania, one has engaged as a learner, reality as it presents itself to one, through the means available in order to achieve the goal that one designs. (cf. Ania Lian, 2001)

The Radio Project, as I have perceived, has a high degree of authenticity. I perceive it to be real and relevant to my objectives as stated above. The means available are also authentic. I realize that the task is something matters to me, but I do not perceive it to be the stuff that has been imposed by the lectures. My perception is that both lectures are trying to facilitate the execution of the task. We all have certain roles to play and things to do. Each of the students has different objectives.

The material, including all of the material e.g. recorders, tape cassettes, CDs, have a considerably high degree of authenticity, and we have selected them ourselves. The task of producing the radio program itself consists of information gaps so as to enable us as learners to negotiate and adjustable to suit the changing circumstances. So far it has created conditions that learners have to use four integrated skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. I have found that the task has raised my awareness; as a student, I am aware that my pronunciation needs improvement; as a teacher, I am aware that one of my responsibilities is to facilitate the students so that they feel they are empowered to do things, things in which they are in control and feel responsible for.

In short, what is authentic lies within the learners. But is this the end of the question? No. The question is of how do I know if it (what I have assimilated) is valid. Apart from myself, who/what else can it be? The group, the society, or the authority? The list is long. Or should we stop it here and feel satisfy with what we think we have got.

The following discussion was based the lecture on Friday, September 2001 at the lecture room 20B18, from 3-5 PM.

To validate your interpretation, you can look at your neighbours, said Ania.

By neighbours, she referred to other people such as books, articles, colleagues, teachers, etc. The feedback you receive from them will modify your interpretation. You evaluate the feedback and redefine your perception of the real world. You can do it cooperatively by discussing with your friends, or individually by reading literature and reflect on it, or talking with others.

I was surprised to learn that the task is not to produce the radio programs per se, but the real task is to pursue my individual goals. So each of us has goals to pursue. The task is simply the excuse or pretext or a means to stimulate us to achieve things that we prefer. Isn’t this cool? Clever, I guess.

What is a learner? A person in real world doing real things, Ania put it.

Each of us has engaged in reality, more or less, up to the individual. In this process of engagement of reality as it presents, you understand of how things are.

What is knowledge? An application of reality, perhaps?

In SLA, the engagement of reality is the source of knowledge. The knowledge here refers to how well you can apply what you know.

If a teacher asks a student to write a letter to a pen pal, the student does not have his real need to do it. The task is just something thrush upon him by the teacher. What the student is doing is meaningless because it is not in the real world.

The crucial task for the teacher is to wake up the student; it is perhaps the hardest thing to achieve.

No technology? Solution? Gaps occur, so you have to find ways to cope with it or to make sense with it.

Prove it that you can do without technology or means?

Have technologies?

So what? How would you do it smartly? What does it mean?

The focus is on the student. It is something he or she has to make the best of himself or herself. Is this the principle of student-centred.

References

Hall, David (1995). Materials Production: Theory and Practice. Getting Started: Material Writers on Material Writing, ed. By Hidalgo, Araceli. Hall, David, and Jacobs, George, 8-24. Singapore: RELC.

Karpova, V. Ludmila (1999) “ Consider the Following When Selecting and Using Authentic Materials” in TESOL Matters. April/May 1999. Retrieved from the WWW site at: http://www.tesol.org/isaffil/intsec/columns/199904-mw.html. Accessed on 19 September 2001.

McCarthy, Michael (2001) Issues in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, David. (1994). “ Inauthentic Authenticity or Authentic Inauthenticity?” in Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Vol. 1 No. 2, August 1994. Retrieved from the WWW site at: http://www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej02/a.1.html. Accessed 19 September 2001.

Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.