The Director of Education of ACTFL, with whom we have tangled before, has recently written the text below. Thanks to Alisa Shapiro for sending it to us. Note the hefty list of references. Hmmm. Who are those people? What are their credentials? How do they teach? Do they teach to the few or to the many? Of course, the idea that is grabbing onto Alisa in this discussion is about the use of authentic texts with really young kids. She has every reason to question Paul on this one:
Paul writes:
The case for using authentic resources is well summarized in a new publication by Eileen Glisan and Richard Donato titled Enacting the Work of Langauge Instruction: High-Leverage Teaching Practices (ACTFL, 2017). Chapter 3 is about guiding learners to interpret and discuss authentic texts and contains an excellent summary of research and theory supporting the practice. Here is just one excerpt citing research on using authentic resources:
“Research in language education continues to confirm the benefits of exposing learners to culturally authentic texts to support overall language learning and the development of interpretive skills (Bacon, 1992; Herron & Seay, 1991; Maxim, 2002). Studies have shown that even beginning learners experience success in interpreting authentic texts if they receive assistance and scaffolding from the teacher and learn to use strategies for making meaning of texts (Maxim, 2002). In fact, research has revealed that learners demonstrate a higher level of comprehension of texts read in their unedited, authentic forms as opposed to more simplified versions created by the teacher to ostensibly simplify the task (Vigil, 1987; Young, 1993, 1999). This is undoubtedly due to the fact that authentic texts contain redundancy (i.e., natural repetition of language) and contextual richness that support meaning in pivotal ways. … Teachers can enable students to experience success with an authentic text by editing the task, not the text—i.e., designing tasks appropriate for learners’ linguistic levels without having complete comprehension and interpretation of the text as the goal (Shrum & Glisan, 2016).” (Glisan & Donato, 2017, p. 66)
Citations:
1. Bacon, S. M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 160–178.
2. Herron, C. A., & Seay, I. (1991). The effect of authentic oral texts on student listening comprehension in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 487–495.
3. Maxim, H. H., II. (2002). A study into the feasibility and effects of reading extended authentic discourse in the beginning German language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 20–35.
4. Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2016). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. 5th edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
5. Vigil, V. D. (1987). Authentic text in the college-level Spanish I class as the primary vehicle of instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.
6. Young, D. J. (1993). Processing strategies of foreign language readers: Authentic and edited input. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 451–468.
7. Young, D. J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of SL reading material: Effective instructional practice? The Modern Language Journal, 83, 350–366
——————————
Paul Sandrock
ACTFL, Director of Education
psandrock@actfl.org
