Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:22:17.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authenticity in CALL: three domains of ‘realness’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Judith Buendgens-Kosten
Judith Buendgens-Kosten*
Affiliation:
Universität Duisburg-Essen, Fakultät für Bildungswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Mediendidaktik und Wissensmanagement, Forsthausweg 2, 47057 Duisburg (email: judith.buendgens-kosten@uni-duisburg-essen.de)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of authenticity and authenticity claims in computer assisted language learning (CALL). It considers authenticity as the result of a social negotiation process rather than an innate feature of a text, object, person, or activity. From this basis, it argues that authenticity claims play an important role in both second language acquisition (SLA) and CALL, being utilized to support the legitimacy of an approach or discipline more generally, as well as in defending a specific didactic design, especially with regard to transfer and motivation. The paper distinguishes between three domains of authenticity claims essential to CALL contexts: authenticity through language (linguistic authenticity), authenticity through origin (cultural authenticity), and authenticity through daily life experiences (functional authenticity). It points out problematic aspects of engaging in authenticity claims and argues that a reflexive stance might be useful in questioning the role of authenticity claims in CALL theory and practice.

Keywords

CALLSLAauthenticityreflexivitytransfermotivation
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 272 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alm, A. (2006) CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(3): 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendix, R. (1997) In search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1985) Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6(1): 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A.Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. American educational research association, 18(1): 32–42.Google Scholar
Busemann, K.Gscheidle, C. (2010) Web 2.0: Nutzung steigt-Interesse an aktiver Teilhabe sinkt. Media Perspektiven, 7–8: 359–368.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999) Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogic results. In: Braine, G. (ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 77–92.Google Scholar
Dam, L. (1995) Learner Autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.Google Scholar
Edelhoff, C. (1985) Authentizität im Fremsprachenunterricht. In: Edelhoff, C. (ed.), Authentische Texte im Deutschunterricht: Einführung und Unterrichtsmodelle. München: Max Hueber Verlag, 7–30.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C.Lambert, W. E. (1972) Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
Guth, S.Helm, F. (eds.) (2010) Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haß, F., Kieweg, W., Kuty, M., Müller-Hartmann, A.Weisshaar, H. (2006) Fachdidaktik Englisch: Tradition – Innovation – Praxis. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In: Quirk, R. Widdowson, H. (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–36.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K.Krause, K.-L. (2008) First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1): 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1997) The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112(3): 359–369.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C.Thorne, S. L. (2002) Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In: Block, D. and Cameron, D. (eds.), Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge, 83–100.Google Scholar
Medgyes, P. (1999) The non-native teacher. Ismaning: Hueber.Google Scholar
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (2010) JIM 2010: Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media: Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-jähriger in Deutschland. http://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/JIM-pdf10/JIM2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mishan, F. (2005) Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
Näser, T. (2008). Authentizität 2.0: Kulturanthropologische Überlegung zur Suche nach ‘Echtheit’ im Videoportal YouTube. kommunikation@gesellschaft, 9.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, N. A.Preston, D. R. (2003) Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
O'Dowd, R. (ed.) (2007), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5): 1–6.Google Scholar
Schlickau, S. (2009) Neue Medien in der Sprach- und Kulturvermittlung: Pragmatik – Didaktik – Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Spanhel, D. (2007) Mit Medien Deutsch lernen: Chancen des Medieneinsatzes im Fach Deutsch als Fremdsprache an Grundschulen. Frühes Deutsch, 4(12): 4–8.Google Scholar
Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tatsumi, T. (2001) Review of Real English. Language learning & technology, 5(1): 37–45.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L.Reinhardt, J. (2008) “Bridging activities,” new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3): 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welz, G. (2001) Die Inszenierung von Authentizität im Kulturbetrieb: Vom Forschungsproblem zum Forschungsgegenstand. In: Löffler, K. (ed.), Dazwischen: Zur Spezifik der Empirien in der Volkskunde: Hochschultagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde in Wien 1998. Wien: Inst. für Europ. Ethnologie, 93–99.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1998) Communication and community: the pragmatics of ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar