The elusive definitions of the terms ‘authentic’
and ‘authenticity’ and their application to language learning have been the
subject of great discussions over the past three decades. The notion of the use
of authentic materials as tools in language teaching once emerged in 1970s,
following with the trend of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The CLT
concept rejected the previous structurally formed language learning approaches,
replacing with the authentic learning with authentic sources, materials that
are made by native speakers for native speakers (Rodgers and Medley, 1988),
that are genuineness, realness, truthfulness, validity, reliability, undisputed
credibility and legitimacy of materials or practices (Tatsuki, 2006). This
notion of genuineness has even been under debate as the spread of English as
international language as well as the cult of the English language
writers/contributors (both native and non-native speakers) through the
Internet.
Should we find the basic premise of using
authentic materials in language learning, it stems from the desire to give
learners “real” language. There are many studies that are concerned with using
effective authentic materials in language classrooms. Most of the studies
asserting the effectiveness of the authentic materials are concerned with
students’ engagement with classroom activities (considered as motivation in
language learning). Based on Peacock’s study in analyzing the effects of
authentic materials and students’ motivation in South Koreans asserts, however,
that there is not significant relationships between the use of authentic
materials and students’ motivation; thus, the relationship between the two
should be treated in different circumstance, which is not merely about the use
of authentic materials that affects the students’ motivation, especially for
the EFL learners (Peacock, 1997).
In modern methodology, there seems a trend of
utilizing authentic material in the English language lesson, and this is the
teachers that know what the most appropriate materials for the students. As a
result, they are perfectly able of selecting the most appropriate material to
be used in class. Presently, the use of magazines and newspapers in English
lessons is widely acknowledged, since they provide stimulating texts full of
cultural information to students who have a wide range of interests. According
to Doff and Jones (1997: 170), once the appropriate text has been selected,
students usually get interested in reading, listening and watching, since they
regard English texts and programs not merely as a tool to learn a language, but
also as a source of information.
These flourishing beliefs, however, undermine the
other aspects of the students in dealing with authentic materials like the
variety of the students’ stances/beliefs (especially when we are talking about
the difference between the target language culture compared to the students’
native culture), the needs of the students, and also the level of proficiency
of the students. These aspects, in fact, may contribute a lot into the
effectiveness of the students in acquiring the target language. Take one of the
most common used authentic materials in language class is newspaper. Newspaper
is not as simple written texts; it becomes the richest texts containing
information, news, opinion, culture clashes and also the power-led discourse.
These contents may affect the students’ psychological aspect, worse when the
students have negative attitude to the contents, especially with the
exaggerated and exploited news about poverty and discrimination, injustice, and
violence.
Focusing on the use of the newspaper as authentic
materials in the language classroom, there are even many different stances both
pro and cons. Flowerdew and Peacock (2001:182) find three arguments for and
another three against authentic materials. In favor: non-authentic texts
cannot represent real-world language use, simplified materials often lose some
meaning and the real-world situations the learners will face are best prepared
for with authentic texts. On the other hand, the other cons are that any one
authentic text may not be authentic for a specific class and the learners’
needs, just because a text is authentic does not mean it is relevant, and
authentic texts are often too difficult linguistically.
...
this is the background of my article presented during NELTAL 2013 held at March 30th, 2013, State University of Malang.
No comments:
Post a Comment