Red de Fibra Óptica

The internet provides access to huge amounts of authentic materials which can be exploited to empower learners in different ways. For example, learners can ‗conduct research on the Web using outside computers, and bring into the classroom authentic data for specific class projects or specific topics being studied in class‘ (Linder, 2004: 12). As a source of authentic materials (Warschauer et al., 2000), the internet has a great potential for learner authenticity as ‗textually authentic materials tend to have greater potential for being made learner authentic than textually unauthentic materials' (Lee, 1995: 324).

We consider authenticity as not only about material from the ‗‗real‘‘ world but ‗‗a personal process of engagement‘‘ for learners, linked to ‗‗self- determination and commitment to understanding‘‘ (Miceli, 2010: 322). Taking this position necessitates tracing learner authenticity in the literature to highlight its importance for empowering the learner.

In his state of the art article, Gilmore adopts Morrow's (1977) definition of an authentic text as 'a stretch of real language, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real audience and designed to convey a real message of some sort' (2007: 98). In his review of research on authenticity, Gilmore excludes all the arguments of what he calls 'subjective notions such as learner authentication' which he thinks makes the

47

term meaningless (ibid.). However, Widdowson (1979) questions authenticity as a quality embedded in the text. He says; 'I think it is probably better to consider authenticity not as a quality residing in instances of language but as a quality which is bestowed upon them, created by the response of the receiver' (Widdowson, 1979: 165). His argument about the relationship between the author's intention and the receiver's interpretation is actually meant to question the ability of a language learner to interpret authentic materials in accordance with the author's intention:

Authenticity, then, depends on a congruence of the language producer's intentions and language receiver's interpretation, this congruence being effected through a shared knowledge of conventions. It is clear that if this view is accepted it makes no sense simply to expose learners to genuine language use unless they know the conventions which would enable them to realize it as authentic (ibid. 166).

To Widdowson, language authenticity in the classroom 'does not depend on the source from which the language as an object is drawn but on the learners' engagementwith it' (Emphasis added, 1990: 44-5).

Widdowson‘s approach to authenticity as more related to the response of the receiver towards a text has generated arguments in the literature. Lee, for example, claims that Widdowson's view 'needs to be expanded, since whether the congruence can be attained also depends in part on the learner's affective and cognitive responses to the materials, his or her perception of their inherent interest and usefulness' (1995: 323). To Lee, 'learner authenticity should refer not only to appropriate responses to the materials, but also to positive perceptions of them' (Emphasis in original, 1995: 323). Similarly, MacDonald et al. make the point that insisting 'on a correspondence between the language learner's interpretation and the autochthonous meaning

48

actually inhibits the imaginative and creative potential of the learner, which is precisely what should be fostered in language classrooms' (2006: 255). Nunan emphasizes the learner‘s role in learner-authenticated materials:

For learners to authenticate materials, these need, minimally, to fulfil two conditions. In the first place, they need to be recognized by learners as having a legitimate place in the language classroom. Secondly, they must engage the interests of the learner by relating to his interests, background knowledge, and experience, and through these, stimulate genuine communication (1988: 102).

As quoted above, Nunan made the relationship between engaging learners' interests and learner authenticity very clear. This relationship is very important for this research as the internet content was used to address learners‘ personal interests. The outcome, according to Nunan, would be genuine communication which is very important in foreign language learning settings.

This view of authenticity as a ‗social construct‘ rather than a characteristic of a text (Widdowson, 1998) needs to be related to the constructivist view of learning which puts the learner at the centre. Pegrum claims that ‗constructivism puts learners, rather than a given body of knowledge, at the centre of the learning process, and aims to build on the pre-existing knowledge and perspectives they bring into the classroom‘ (2009: 27). Senior argues that in constructivism:

Knowledge is now collective and readily available to all: the conditions under which learners learn is no longer the exclusive domain of teachers. If teachers are not to be sidelined they need to redefine the joint processes of teaching and learning in order to accommodate flexible learning in both conventional and digitally-enhanced classrooms. Constructivism is the model of teaching and learning best placed to supersede both transmission and behaviourist models … Rather than seeking to coverthe curriculum,learning focuses on the learners’ experiences, needs, interests, and aspirations (2010: 138).

49

This view of learning is consistent with Nunan‘s view of learner authenticity which is according to Guariento and Morley ‗the most crucial type of authenticity, for unless a learner is somehow 'engaged' by the task, unless they are genuinely interested in its topic and its purpose, then the other types of authenticity may count for very little (2001: 350-1). Similarly, Nunan makes the point that an ‗important type of authenticity (perhaps the most important of all) is what might be called 'learner authenticity'. By this is meant the realization and acceptance by the learner of the authenticity of a given text, task, set of materials, or learning activity‘ (1988: 102).

Senior (2010) cites Williams and Burden (1997: 2) who ‗propose a social constructivist view of the teaching-learning process in which the learner(s), the teacher, the task and the context interact with and affect each other in dynamic ways‘ (Senior, 2010: 138). This view is consistent with Shomoossi‘s and Ketabi‘s comprehensive view of authenticity that intertwines between the text, the task, the local setting, the teacher and the learners. They claim that ‗the notion of authenticity within the global context must be considered in the light of the pragmatic appropriateness of the materials used and the interaction tasks set in relation to learners' needs and interests‘ (Emphasis added, 2007: 149). To them, ‗the

knowledgeable teacher is the nexus for empowering materials and tasks that are 'authentic' for their specific groups of learners‘ (ibid.).

50

Although the teacher‘s role is very important in this regard, the learners‘ role is as much important as the teacher‘s. Learners are the ones who can best decide on what is interesting and, therefore, authentic for them. Dat argues that 'materials should return control to the learner and learners' personal decisions should be respected' (2003: 385). The internet as a source of materials has a great potential in this regard as with the internet ‗students can search through millions of files around the world within minutes to locate and access authentic materials (…) that correspond to their own personal interests‘ (Kern and Warschauer, 2000: 12). In order for the materials to be learner-authentic, learners need be actively involved in the selection of materials as well as in the ‗materials developing process‘ (Dat, 2003: 385) as discussed in the following section.