Authenticity and task

In order to promote learner authenticity and help learners go beyond the cliché of ‘responding to the given texts appropriately’, well-designed and well-performed classroom tasks are as important as the text selection (Arnold, 1991; Lee, 1995; Porter and Roberts, 1981; Wringe, 1989). In this study, the term ‘task’ refers to any classroom activities that require learners’ social and/or cognitive engagement and that facilitate the process of language learning. To achieve authenticity in classroom tasks, according to Nunan (1989), tasks should be designed and performed carefully in a way that reflects the ‘real world’ communication. Furthermore, it is necessary to take learners’ goals, interests, previous knowledge and possible ways of interpretation into account when designing relevant and appropriate classroom tasks (Oğuz & Bahar, 2008; Hedge, 2000).

In the literature, it is frequently emphasised that classroom tasks can be authentic only when they reflect real-world conditions and language use outside the classroom

(Ellis, 2003; Tomlinson, 1998; Wringe, 1989). In terms of language testing and task- based learning, authenticity is usually discussed within two types as ‘situational authenticity’ and ‘interactional authenticity’ (Bachman, 1990; Ellis, 2003). While the former addresses the correspondence between the classroom task and ‘real world’

tasks (i.e. relation to the learners’ daily life activities), the latter refers to learners’ communication in interactions while performing the tasks (Ellis, 2003). However, although presenting various degrees of authenticity, Brown (2011) claims that ‘there is probably no such thing as real task authenticity’ since classroom tasks are often designed and performed with language learning purposes rather than ‘real’ communication. To him, the most authentic task would be the one that learners have to carry out outside the classroom without the language instructor (ibid., p.142). Wringe (1989), on the other hand, states that the concern for task authenticity ‘should not be exaggerated to the point of absurdity’ (p.44), that is, through appropriate and well-designed classroom tasks, using a real restaurant menu (i.e. ‘genuine’ input) and ordering a meal without actually going to a restaurant may well be very useful and authentic for learners. In addition, Wringe (1989) underlines that the important condition here is to focus on learners’ performance and actions instead of merely on their responses as ‘answers for teachers to mark’ (p.45).

Task authenticity can be considered as a prerequisite for achieving learner authenticity since ‘authentic’ input may not always be enough to fulfil the communicative goals and to foster authentic learning experience in the classroom (see Guariento and Morley, 2001). According to Oğuz and Bahar (2008), an authentic learning environment naturally promotes learners’ creativity, awareness and autonomy by encouraging them to work on ‘realistic problems, participate in

activities that solve real-life problems or create products that have real-life purposes’ (p.329). Hence, language teachers need to pay attention not only to the process of designing and performing an effective type of task but also to possible outcomes of them (Porter and Roberts, 1981). The lack of attention to this issue may lead to presenting texts through ‘inauthentic’ means in the classroom. For instance, using authentic texts merely through traditional types of classroom exercises might extremely limit the variety of samples of ‘real’ language use that learners need to experience. If the goal of the language classroom is to help learners use their learned language skills in ‘the world outside’ effectively, the classroom tasks should be

designed appropriately carrying both pedagogical and communicative functions. In addition, ‘authentic tasks’ should draw learners’ attention to both linguistic and socio-cultural components of the text.

Focusing on the purpose and the presentation of texts in the language classroom, Breen (1985a) makes a distinction between ‘authentic communication tasks’ and ‘authentic language learning tasks’ (p.64). The author claims that task authenticity can be achieved when the tasks carried out in language classrooms cover both communicative and pedagogical purposes simultaneously. That is, authentic tasks should aim at encouraging language learners not only ‘to communicative ideas and meanings’ but also to ‘meta-communicate about the language’ and the process of language learning (Breen, 1985, p.66). For example, the authenticity of a classroom task can be discussed through the extent to which it involves learners in authentic engagement with texts and with other learners in the classroom as well as the extent to which it raises learners’ awareness of the purpose and process of language learning.

Task authenticity, in fact, is not a simple and explicit issue as one assumes. Arnold (1991) summarises the interactional process in the language classroom as follows: the materials, first, need to be related to the particular goals of language learners. Second, the tasks should provide a change for learners to engage with authentic interaction in which learners are encouraged to give authentic responses instead of memorising drills and simply acting out a role. Third, participants and relationships between them (e.g. status) in the tasks need to be authentic as well, which means language learners should be given authentic roles according to their main goals. Finally, authentic outputs of the tasks can be used as authentic inputs of a new task, thus linkage of input and output in authenticity should be promoted (ibid.).

Guariento and Morley (2001) discuss how to apply the concept of authenticity to classroom tasks in practice by presenting four ‘schools of thought’ on task authenticity: (1) authenticity through a genuine purpose, (2) authenticity through real world targets, (3) authenticity through classroom interaction and (4) authenticity through engagement. Although the authors make distinctions between each of these four types by pointing out the lack of common ground among them, they claim that language teachers can actually design a classroom ‘in which the four can operate in conjunction’ (p.351). The authors also state that language teachers need to combine

text and task aspects of authenticity together within carefully prepared and presented tasks in order to achieve authenticity in the language classroom.

Promoting the concept of authenticity as an ongoing process (i.e. authentication) rather than ‘an attribute that may or may not be present (in texts, individuals or activities)’, Wee (2008) states that we can embrace a ‘performance-based’

orientation on authenticity (p.268). In this way, we can link text- and task-based authenticity with ‘self-based authenticity’ in language learning experience, which also continues outside the classroom. Furthermore, this approach to authenticity helps us to observe individual responses to and interpretation of the language learning process in the classroom.

2.4.2.1. Varied interpretations of classroom tasks

Language lessons are ‘instances of collective interaction’ that are co-constructed by the participants simultaneously involved in the management and practice of interaction in the classroom. Students and teachers may have different interpretations and perceptions and this can both result in and result from different interactive work they carry out in the classroom (Allwright, 1984). Coughlan and Duff (1994) state that ‘even with a single, relatively controlled task, a range of discourse types may result from subjects’ multiple interpretations of that task ... their attempt to make [the task] a more interesting one, making comparisons to personal experience, playing language games and so on’ (p.185). In fact, even when the structure of a task (e.g. textbook exercise) and the context in which that task is carried out appear to be same, people’s interpretations and (re)conceptualisation of the task would be quite

different. Thus, it would be natural to expect different outcomes by different participants with the same task.

In ‘activity theory’, which focuses on socially and culturally constructed human behaviour in context, a task can be composed of three distinguished levels: (1) the level of motivation (i.e. why the action takes place), (2) the level of action/goal (i.e. what is being done) and (3) the level of conditions (i.e. the actual doing) (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Lantolf (2000) claims that while activities can be

easily observed in particular spatial and temporal conditions, it is not always easy to observe the underlying motives and perceived goals of those activities. As a result, ‘the same observable activity can be linked to different goals and motives and different concrete activities can be linked to the same motives and goals’ by the

people (Ellis, 2003; Lantolf, 2000, p.8).

In the classroom context, these varied interpretations should be recognised in order to develop a better understanding about the process of language learning. According to van Lier (1996), inauthentic discourse may happen when participants’ various interpretations and language uses are in conflict and when ‘this conflict is either ignored or not successfully repaired’ (p.127). Here, the teacher has an important role in identifying learners’ motives and interpretations as well as acknowledging potential conflicts between interpretation and intentions.