Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Reading Reflection # 3

Achieving ‘Text and Task Authenticity’ Through CALL


It’s a while since I have listened to my Pimsleur audio downloads in Spanish, Mandarin, and French, but they must still be serving many in my generation who want a crash course in authentic language just before their next foreign trip. There is no doubt that the new technologies have revolutionized language learning. But what about language learning in the classroom context? Does the plethora of ways of language learning satisfy Ellis’ (1990) criteria of authenticity, in offering students both (1) ‘real operating conditions’ and (2) ‘meaning-focused language activities’ (Guariento & Morley, p. 349)?

My recent experience in a Latin American situation, where I had to express my needs and defend my rights (at least once) with my grammar-based, high school, Seville-accented, espagñol causes me to reflect on two points raised in Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom (Guariento & Morley 2001). The first is ‘can authentic material be simplified without losing its authenticity’ (348)? The second is what are the most effective ways of achieving task authenticity?

But first I want to point to a subtle distinction between the terms ‘authentic,’ and ‘real world,’ because although their meanings overlap, in pedagogy I do not believe that they necessarily refer to the same kind of experience. To me, ‘authentic’, as used in pedagogy, can be both real word or simulated. ‘Real world,’ on the other hand, denotes life in its actuality; here there is no simulation.

Having split this very delicate strand of hair :), I would say that with regard to simplifying authentic material for the language learner, I think instinctively of the way that young children learn language. They learn mainly in real world situations which are over their heads and are most times, not simplified. And this makes me feel that simplification in language learning becomes a necessity when teachers insist on maintaining as their only learning exposure, the walled classrooms they have traditionally used. Further, in my view such simplification is dangerous, because not only does it run the risk of containerizing all members of the class in one level and pace of language acquisition, but it could also prevent the normal learning in the ZPD that Vygotsky has observed natural language learning in the real world thrives on.

A good case in point is the learning of the use of the subjunctive which is usually delayed until the upper levels in most traditional language learning classrooms. Can a language learner in the real world really avoid the subjunctive ‘May I’ or ‘Should I’?

I would also like to point out that in real world situations, the language learner is usually exposed to iterative encodings of the same experience – there is no one way in which the story of life, society and daily happenings is told. Peer groups, television, the taxi driver repeat the same news, each from their own level of understanding, interest, and language competence. Therefore, if the message is important enough, the novice language learner is bound to catch at least one version, or find a level at which a relevant question could be asked.

With regard to the second issue of the most effective ways of achieving task authenticity, Guariento and Morley discuss four current views: (1) the language should be used for a genuine purpose (Willis 1996); (2) the task should relate to a ‘real world’ activity (Long and Crookes 1992); (3) the learning situation need only have ‘potential authenticity’ (Breen 1985); and (4) the task should ‘engage’ the student (Widdowson 1978).

In my opinion, the first two views of authenticity above are similar, and have influenced pedagogic shifts in language teaching from grammar and audio-lingual approaches to more current communicative approaches. However, Breen’s argument intrigues me, because in his use of the term ‘potential authenticity’, he shifts the focus from the actual provision of real world situations, to the more important issue of what the language learner does with the real world situation that is either provided or simulated. Widdowson’s element, ‘engagement’ also intrigues me, because it extends Breen’s point. For, I believe that language learning is less dependent on real world situations, than it is on engagement and simulation of real life; and in support I will cite a personal experience.

My flight through Caracas back home last week was cancelled, so I was put up in a hotel and allowed one call home at the hotel’s expense. But the call did not go through, and I was told if I wanted another, it would have to be at my expense. In my high school grammar-based, Seville-accented espagñol, I launched a protest. To say the least, it was embarrassing! Not so much because I was not understood, but because my espagñol was culturally out of context and a couple generations obsolete.

Now, in my view, one couldn’t hope for better language engagement! But this real world experience was not what I needed to improve my language competence. What would have been more helpful would have been many more exposures to Breen’s ‘potential authenticity’ in prior, less heated, simulated, language learning exposures. The point is that the language learner could never experience all the ‘real world’ situations that are necessary to become proficient at language.

Furthermore, the language learner does not need to be knocked on the head by ‘real world’ experience to gain language competence. To me, Breen’s potential authenticity and Widdowson’s engagement are far more powerful and far-reaching in providing learners with effective language learning experiences. And to me, in ipods, in e-pals, in voice Messenger-ing, CALL classrooms can provide ‘potential authenticity’ that is suitably effective.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home