CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The literature review in the previous chapter led me to identify the specifications of the dimensions of authenticity and to describe ‘authentication’ as the interaction between these dimensions. To illustrate the dynamics between these dimensions, a model for the conceptualisation of authenticity in the language classroom will be presented in this chapter. It is worth highlighting that this model does not represent a prescriptive or dogmatic visualisation of the phenomenon to be tested against reality, but a dynamic and holistic conceptualisation emerging from the literature review.
Although they do not present such a model, Shomoossi & Ketabi (2007) highlight that the notion of authenticity should be studied within a theoretical model that explicitly addresses the interaction between learners, teachers, text and activities in the context of language teaching and learning. As underlined in the previous chapter, ‘authenticity’ can emerge as ‘the result of acts of authentication’ by students and teachers through their personal ‘process of engagement’ and validation-in-context (van Lier, 1996, p.125). Hence, a model through which the conceptualisation of authenticity in the language classroom is studied needs to be of a constructivist nature.
Individuals, as social beings, are in the very centre of the process of meaning-making and of the process of authentication. As Badger (2011) underlines, ‘authenticity is individual’ and what is more authentic for one language user/learner may be less
authentic for another one, or vice versa. For example, depending on their age, gender, proficiency level or previous experiences, different learners may have different expectations and perceptions as they describe ‘authenticity’ (see Chavez, 1998). All these individual factors inevitably affect the process of authentication by the participants in the learning environment.
This kind of conceptualisation should also adopt a ‘social’ approach as language learning and teaching is a social act and ‘is always the product of socially situated participants’ (Candlin, 2001; p.xvi). Breen (1985b) explicitly states that
If we hope to explain fully the relationship between classroom input and learning outcomes, or to explain possible relationships between strategic behaviour and language learning, then we need to locate these relationships socially. How and why learners do what they do will be strongly influenced by their situation, who they are with and by their perceptions of both. (p.138)
Describing the classroom context as a specific culture, Breen (1985b) underlines that classroom culture is jointly constructed by the participants. Classrooms also provide appropriate environments to ‘re-construct knowledge’ through interaction (Breen, 1985b, p.147) and specific conditions for authenticity (Breen, 1985a). Hence, an investigation into the concept of authenticity should be within the conventions of language learning and other social and pedagogical factors in context. Here, it is important to understand how the meanings of particular events or phenomena vary with different conditions and how the participants of these events realise the activities and notions emerging from these conditions (Lock & Strong, 2010; Marechal, 2010). Constructivism deals with individuals’ understanding and meaning-making processes as well as their active roles within a social structure
(Crotty, 1998). Therefore, the conceptualisation of authenticity in this study has social constructivist tenets.
Applying the social constructivist approach in language education, Williams and Burden (1997) present ‘a social constructivist model’ of the teaching-learning process (p.42-44) in which knowledge is socially constructed by individual participants in the learning environment. Placing the learner in the centre and concentrating on the dynamic nature of the interaction between its components, the model involves learner, teacher, task and context(s). While each of these four components is individually considered to be of particular value, as Williams and Burden (1997) underline, ‘none of these factors exists in isolation; they all interact as part of a dynamic, ongoing process’ (p.43).
For the present study, the following model is designed to explore the relationships between different aspects of authenticity in English language classrooms. The model is adapted from Williams and Burden’s (1997) social constructivist model. Here, the components of the model (e.g. text, task, teacher and learner) are placed within a ‘Penrose square’ to highlight both individual (e.g. subjective) and interactive (e.g. inter-subjective) roles and relationships of each component in a social setting. As seen in the model, although each component represents a separate dimension of the model, all of them are interconnected with one another as well as with the surrounding contexts. The dashed lines around the square represent contextualisation of these components within permeable boundaries.
Figure 3.1. Dimensions of authenticity in the language classroom
In this model, learners are regarded as active ‘meaning-makers’ and ‘problem- solvers’ who bring their individual cognitive strategies, perspectives, expectations and social experiences in the classroom. Therefore, learners are capable of making their own sense of the process of language instruction. As Holliday (2005) states, learners’ involvement and interaction during the lesson may not be exclusively planned and shaped by the teacher or the task. This is a process which ‘happens anyway’ as learners attempt to realise and respond to what is actually happening in the classroom (for example, see Allwright & Bailey, 1991). Indeed, learners can actively try to comprehend the nature of the interaction in the classroom and their roles in this interaction, which is what Holliday (2005) calls as ‘authentic engagement’ (p.108). Likewise, teachers bring their own beliefs, attitudes and values in the teaching process, which affects the selection of texts and tasks to be introduced in the classroom. Williams and Burden (1997) claim that teachers’ beliefs (about learning, teaching, learners and themselves) and their knowledge essentially influence how they organise and carry out their teaching. The present study, thereby,
aims to explore the nature of learners’ and teachers’ authentic engagements in the process of language learning and teaching in the classroom.
The classroom task also has a significant role in this model as it is ‘the interface between the teacher and learners’ (Williams and Burden, 1997, p.44). In a language classroom, by changing the types of input data, learners’ roles or other factors, tasks can be used to produce various types of interaction and outputs. Therefore, the processes of designing, presenting and validating the tasks used in language classrooms should be carefully studied. Williams and Burden (1997) state that tasks can be regarded as ‘a manifestation of the theories of learning subscribed to by teachers and their perceptions of the whole spectrum of the teaching-learning process’ (p.183). That is, while addressing learners’ interests and goals, tasks are more likely to reflect the teacher’s own beliefs about teaching and learning such as learners’ roles and involvements in a task. For example, if the teacher believes that
grammar is the core of language learning, and language is learned through merely focusing on form, s/he may introduce particular types of tasks that reflect this belief. In their model, Williams and Burden (1997) address ‘input data’ as a part of ‘task’ component and briefly discuss it in the chapter about the tasks used in the language classroom. However, since ‘text’ has been regarded as a significant component in the discussion of authenticity in ELT and it includes both materials (e.g. textbooks or ‘authentic’ texts) and other language data in the classroom, it is presented as a separate component of the model developed for the present study.
Finally, the context is also explicitly addressed in the model because it inevitably affects and is affected by the other components. The context in which learning takes
place may include the physical, social, political, cultural environments as well as the emotional one (Williams and Burden, 1997, p.44). That is, it may refer to national and cultural environments, educational system of a country, physical environment and the structure of the classroom (i.e. organising teaching and learning experiences and styles). All of these factors influence the learning and teaching processes and the interaction between the participants. Furthermore, Williams and Burden (1997) highlight that by involving their own perceptions and perspectives, the participants shape and co-construct these factors, thus becoming both the producers and productions of their own contexts (p.199-202).
I pay attention to the aspects that Williams and Burden (1997) discuss under the component of ‘context’ (e.g. physical environment, the school ethos, classroom climate, political environment etc.) in this study. Moreover, while addressing the relationship between authenticity and context, I refer to the concepts of small and large cultures (Holliday, 1999). That is, both the interactional context and pedagogical conventions within language classroom culture (small culture) and local and international references in cultural issues (large culture) are addressed throughout the study. In order to refer to these two notions of culture and to highlight the blurred and somehow interwoven boundaries between them, the outline circles are presented with dashed lines in the model. As Holliday (1999) states ‘small cultures do not necessarily have the Russian doll or onion-skin relationship with parent large cultures’ with rigid borders (p.239).
As the social constructivist model encompasses both cognitive and social perspectives on the process of meaning-making, it is concerned not only with what
participants possess and bring to a particular learning situation but also how they (co)construct a ‘dynamic interaction’ with other participants. Breen (1985b) states that any models used to study the language classroom should focus on the relationship between social dynamics and events of the classroom and individual’s contributions and developments within these events. At the end, ‘the social context of learning and the social forces within it will always shape what is made available to be learned and the interaction of individual mind with external linguistic or communicative knowledge’ (ibid., p.139). Likewise, it can be claimed that the roles of social contexts and of participants need to be explicitly addressed in order to shed light on the process of authentication in the language classroom. As noted earlier, authentication in ELT is ‘a process of engagement in the learning situation and a characteristic of persons engaged in learning’ (van Lier, 1996, p.125). The model proposed in this study aims to provide a dynamic, coherent and effective conceptual framework for the discussion of the notion of authenticity in language classrooms.
Utilising this model, the present study investigates how authenticity is (co)constructed as a set of relations in the classroom context where individual and social discourses are construed through interaction. More specifically, it focuses on the extent to which participants authenticate their learning and teaching experiences. As Williams and Burden (1997, p.42-46) highlight, although presenting and investigating the components as separate entries may cause contradiction and artificiality, this separation can be helpful to build a coherent and fruitful discussion through which both the individual contributions of each component and the dynamic relationships among them can be revealed. The model provides not only a coherent framework for the present study, but also a flexible one.