There's a strong push for "authentic resources" in language teaching. That's a whole can of worms, and maybe I'll get into it sometime, but not at the moment. But a corollary to the directive to teach using authentic resources is to "adapt the task, not the text."
That pithy response is generally to address concerns like "My students aren't proficient enough to understand [xyz text]" or "How can I find authentic resources appropriate for novice-level learners?" Those are super valid points. If we define authentic as only "by native speakers, for native speakers," as is done popularly (my personal definition I'll leave for another post), then yeah--it's going to be hard to find texts written by people proficient in a language that are understandable by people who are not yet proficient in that language. There is likely a lot of unknown vocabulary and probably grammatical constructions that are unfamiliar (especially if one teaches according to a textbook sequence where some grammar is considered too "difficult" to present in the first semester or year or what have you). So back to the response. Rather than capitulate the point that it may make sense to provide language learners with texts they can understand, i.e. probably texts targeted specifically for learners, which don't fit the narrow definition of "authentic," the popular refrain is to "adapt the task, not the text." What does that mean? It means finding something, anything the learner can do with the text provided, given their current proficiency level. That might mean identifying cognates, looking for examples of a particular verb tense, finding known vocabulary words, etc. And honestly? I don't have a problem with that (to a point). It is valuable to practice the skill of trying to negotiate meaning in an otherwise incomprehensible text. As learners get out of the classroom and into the real world of the language (assuming they have the inclination and eventual proficiency to do so), they will come across plenty of incomprehensible text that needs deciphering. My issue, from an acquisition standpoint, is that it's inefficient. If the goal of a language program is to get learners to acquire as much language as possible in our limited contact hours, then I want to focus my time where I get the biggest bang for my buck. If most of the language in an authentic text is incomprehensible, and students must resort to picking out isolated words/phrases, then it's not much different than providing them with a list of words/phrases. And my goal is to move beyond the word/phrase level as quickly as possible so students can be processing increasingly complex (but still comprehensible) language. To sum it up, I don't mind incorporating the occasional native-origin text, in order to practice the skill of deciphering, but it's never going to be my mainstay activity nor my go-to for providing concentrated input, simply because the content that is comprehended is so sparse.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |