In the final post in his series on authenticity, Unlock author Lewis Lansford evaluates the role of authenticity in published materials.
In my previous two posts on the topic of authentic materials in the classroom, I discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using authentic materials, and some possible routes towards solutions to the problems raised by them. In this post, I’d like to explore the role of authenticity in published materials.
Coursebooks can contain authentic materials
I asked teachers if ‘authentic materials’ and ‘coursebooks’ are mutually exclusive. ‘No, I don’t think they are,’ says MH, taking the view that unadapted/untouched authentic texts – taken directly from outside sources – with activities around them are still authentic, even when they appear in a coursebook. HS says that coursebook listening materials, when they include actual, unadapted native-speaker interviews ‘are authentic, as they haven’t been changed at all.’
There was a feeling that publishers need to be careful what they call authentic. Conducting actual interviews, but then re-recording them with actors, is not a problem in itself, but more than one teacher mentioned that this sort of material shouldn’t be billed as ‘authentic.’
Adapted or semi-authentic materials are useful, too
MS prefers to use authentic materials that haven’t been adapted, but says adaptation can be useful ‘when the level of the students is such that they might need a “bridge” to reality’ and adds ‘but on teacher training courses we usually tell the trainees to change the task rather than the text.’
Even so, all of the teachers I spoke with acknowledged the need at lower levels to limit the load of grammar and vocabulary, to make materials accessible and useful to learners.
DM takes the view that we also can look for authenticity in the language itself, rather than just in the source: ‘Some texts created from scratch by ESL/EFL writers and publishers are claimed to be “authentic.” I think these claims can be upheld, provided that the texts:
- are written by native speakers
- use an appropriate and natural range of language and structures (rather than a restricted range of, say, the first 1,000 words, or are confined to the past tense, or avoid certain structures)
- are of the same quality as those found in native media
- are likely to be published ‘as-is’ in native media
- would actually be found in the environment.’
This is where published coursebooks are the most useful. High quality adaptation is time-consuming, and teachers often don’t have lots of time to spend developing level-appropriate lessons. While teachers at B2 and above have a wealth of authentic resources available, there’s far less choice in the A1-B1 range.
DM: ‘In classroom contexts, you typically use material that is at or just beyond the target level. You want to challenge students, but just enough. At the very lowest levels, you might use what appears in format to be a newspaper article. But newspaper articles aren’t typically written at the A2 or B1 level. So while the material may be designed to mimic the structure, the look and feel of a newspaper article, if you were to bring in a real newspaper article, students would not be able to handle it. In such a case, you’d opt for inauthentic over authentic.’
My own most recent experience adapting authentic material for publication was as an author on Cambridge University Press’s Unlock series. I adapted television documentaries from The Discovery Channel, first selecting segments of about five minutes that worked as ‘stories’, then writing B2-level-appropriate voiceovers based on the original audio. These adaptations have the benefit of the original made-for-television content and production values, along with the teacher-and-student-friendly benefits of levelling and language control, and so far the response from teachers has been overwhelmingly positive.
What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of using adapted materials for learners? Have adapted, semi-authentic materials worked well for your learners?