With the design and implementation of Common Core in recent years (Selection of Authentic Texts, 2013), many researchers and educators struggle to find common ground on the proper use of authentic, simplified and elaborate texts in the classroom for second language acquisition (SLA) (e.g., Crossley, Mouwerse, McCarthy & McNamara, 2007; Allen, 2009; Young, 1999). For teachers of English language learners (ELLs), this problem is compounded by the dual task of teaching content and language skills, often times simultaneously (Herrera & Murry, 2015). Maloch & Bomer (2013) describe the “fourth-year slump” (p. 205) for native English speakers when students begin “reading to learn” instead of simply “learning to read.” Furthermore, ELLs typically cannot
…show more content…
Crossley et al., (2007) define authentic texts as a “text originally created to fulfill a social purpose in the language community for which it was intended.” (p. 17). Examples of these raw texts include newspapers, manuals, transportation tickets, advertisements, magazine articles, and, perhaps most relevant to the classroom, novels. (Crossely et al., 2007). Supporters of authentic text usage state that these types of texts are necessary for ELLs if they wish to advance their reading comprehension skills (Herrera & Murry, 2015). ELLs also take advantage of the added redundancy found in many authentic texts (Johnson, 1982). For instance, if a reader does not know the meaning of one word, he or she can rely on other words or phrases in the passage to determine the definition. Detractors of authentic texts claim that these passages are often seen as “too much, too soon” by the readers and lead to a weakening of confidence and morale. If a student is exposed to a great deal of difficult and authentic texts over time, he or she may feel too overwhelmed to continue (O’Donnell, 2009). Furthermore, authentic texts typically take more time to teach than a simplified or elaborated text. When students are learning content and comprehension together, authentic texts can be viewed as a misuse of classroom instruction (Crossely et al, …show more content…
Material developers and publishers, policy makers, teachers of ELLs and content teachers would all benefit from such a result (Crossley & McNamara, 2008). Firstly, commercial publishers are hesitant to stray from their current designs, possibly from a lack of a definitive agreement on this subject (Yano et al., 1994). More recently, Shirzadi (2014) argues that despite some growing momentum of the benefits of lexical simplification, any movement to accommodate these new findings is latent due to inconsistent research. One possible reason for these inconsistencies is the differences in research designs (Crossely et al, 2014). It can be hard to reach one conclusion when methods and procedures can vary widely. Teachers, both of ELLs and content subjects, would most certainly feel the effect of more solid analysis on this subject. As already discussed above, modifications, of any kind, take time (Allen, 2009, Petersen & Ostendorf, 2007). This poses a huge hurdle for teachers who are already working countless hours in and out of the classroom. Taking up precious prep time by modifying authentic texts for their students can be seen as tedious and perhaps futile. If material developers produced proper texts for ELLs, teachers would not need to modify existing texts themselves (perhaps even doing so incorrectly or intuitively) (Crossley et al, 2012). ENL/ESL teachers who follow the SIOP model would better understand
Crossley et al., (2007) define authentic texts as a “text originally created to fulfill a social purpose in the language community for which it was intended.” (p. 17). Examples of these raw texts include newspapers, manuals, transportation tickets, advertisements, magazine articles, and, perhaps most relevant to the classroom, novels. (Crossely et al., 2007). Supporters of authentic text usage state that these types of texts are necessary for ELLs if they wish to advance their reading comprehension skills (Herrera & Murry, 2015). ELLs also take advantage of the added redundancy found in many authentic texts (Johnson, 1982). For instance, if a reader does not know the meaning of one word, he or she can rely on other words or phrases in the passage to determine the definition. Detractors of authentic texts claim that these passages are often seen as “too much, too soon” by the readers and lead to a weakening of confidence and morale. If a student is exposed to a great deal of difficult and authentic texts over time, he or she may feel too overwhelmed to continue (O’Donnell, 2009). Furthermore, authentic texts typically take more time to teach than a simplified or elaborated text. When students are learning content and comprehension together, authentic texts can be viewed as a misuse of classroom instruction (Crossely et al, …show more content…
Material developers and publishers, policy makers, teachers of ELLs and content teachers would all benefit from such a result (Crossley & McNamara, 2008). Firstly, commercial publishers are hesitant to stray from their current designs, possibly from a lack of a definitive agreement on this subject (Yano et al., 1994). More recently, Shirzadi (2014) argues that despite some growing momentum of the benefits of lexical simplification, any movement to accommodate these new findings is latent due to inconsistent research. One possible reason for these inconsistencies is the differences in research designs (Crossely et al, 2014). It can be hard to reach one conclusion when methods and procedures can vary widely. Teachers, both of ELLs and content subjects, would most certainly feel the effect of more solid analysis on this subject. As already discussed above, modifications, of any kind, take time (Allen, 2009, Petersen & Ostendorf, 2007). This poses a huge hurdle for teachers who are already working countless hours in and out of the classroom. Taking up precious prep time by modifying authentic texts for their students can be seen as tedious and perhaps futile. If material developers produced proper texts for ELLs, teachers would not need to modify existing texts themselves (perhaps even doing so incorrectly or intuitively) (Crossley et al, 2012). ENL/ESL teachers who follow the SIOP model would better understand