“Authenticity” in English

In language education, “authenticity” refers to the sense of reality in what learners see, hear, and experience in their daily lives. For example, using actual subway station announcements as teaching materials for Japanese language education is considered to have high “authenticity” for learners who use the subway on a daily basis.

The importance of “authenticity” in language education began to be emphasized in the late 1980s. Until then, the mainstream approach to learning involved mechanically teaching grammar and vocabulary. While the definition and development of practical communication skills had been discussed since the 1970s, it was around the late 1980s that the necessity of “authenticity” began to appear in academic papers.

In the 1990s, as situations requiring the use of foreign languages like English in business settings increased, the need for English for Specific Purposes (ESP), particularly English for Business Purposes (EBP), grew. From this point on, the term “authenticity” began to appear frequently in academic literature. Business English is the quintessential example of EBP.

However, the definition of “authenticity” varies in strictness among researchers, which has been a source of confusion for researchers and practitioners regarding what qualifies as having high authenticity. For example, some argue that simply having a dialogue of subway announcements in learning materials constitutes high “authenticity,” while others insist that actual broadcasts must be used as materials for listening exercises. In task-based language education, some researchers even argue that unless students go to an actual workplace, such as through an internship, and experience tasks using a foreign language, it cannot be called “high authenticity.”

Although the strictness of the definition of “authenticity” varies among researchers, when considering realistic educational settings, the key point is whether one can analyze the learners’ needs and daily experiences and incorporate them into teaching materials.

However, there is very little research that has verified the effects of this “authenticity.” Do materials with truly high “authenticity” actually improve learning outcomes? If so, through what process do they enhance learning?

In language education, this point has not been debated, and it seems that ESP and EBP are progressing with a vague sense that “it seems effective, even if we don’t know why.”

What I find to be an even more important point is the conditions under which something is perceived as having high “authenticity.” For example, if I advise a first-year master’s student that “(if you don’t prepare to meet the deadline well in advance) you will have a hard time in your second year,” it likely won’t resonate with that student. Writing a master’s thesis is an incredibly difficult process—a crystallization of two years of effort including experimental design, implementation, and analysis—and while this may not be limited to Japanese students, generally speaking, there are not many students who study that seriously. One would expect master’s students to study more than undergraduates. However, since this is something that almost every second-year master’s student experiences, it should naturally be recognized as having high “authenticity.”

Yet, the fact that some students do not recognize this “authenticity” and let the advice go unheeded means that for those specific students, it cannot be said to have high “authenticity.”

Factors such as “urgency” where one’s direct interests are involved, or the “seriousness” of a problem—which might be encompassed by “authenticity”—suggest that there are certain conditions that increase “authenticity.”

This research seems like it could become a quagmire, but if the evaluation criteria and experimental design are solid, it could reveal some interesting insights.

If you are interested, I found this literature to be quite fascinating, so please take a look.

HERRON, C., MORRIS, M., SECULES, T. and CURTIS, L. (1995) A Comparison Study of the Effects of Video-Based versus Text-Based Instruction in the Foreign Language Classroom, The French Review. 68(5): 775-795

HUTCHINSON, T. and WATERS, A. (1987) English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK