T1 112008021 Full text
Observing Students’ Response Toward Material Authenticity in Senior High School
Deilly Ismet Perkasa
ABSTRACT
Teaching and learning material is an important aspect to increase the students’ interest,
enthusiasm, concentration, and enjoyment in English classroom learning. Since the issue
toward material authenticity becomes a debatable issue among scholars and there are still a
lot of arguments on how material authenticity is best applied, this study was aimed to find out
the senior high-school students’ response toward material authenticity. One research
question was asked “How is students’ response toward the material authenticity in the level
of Senior High School?” Thirty first-grade students of SMA N 1 Salatiga were selected to be
the participants of this study. They were taught using both materials, authentic and nonauthentic for 4 times. After that, they were asked to fill in the questionnaire (Peacock, 1997)
which showed the students’ responses toward both materials, authentic and non-authentic.
Then, the data were analyzed based on two different categories proposed by Peacock (ibid.)
which covered: (1) overall class interest & enthusiasm and (2) self-reported interest &
enthusiasm. The results of the study indicated that the students’ positive responses to
authentic (80.55%) and non-authentic (81.46%) materials did not differ significantly
Key words: Authentic, non-authentic, students’ response, senior high-school
INTRODUCTION
Material authenticity has raised some controversy among experts in the field of
English education. There are two point of views to be debated, which are authentic material is
beneficial for learning and authentic material has disadvantages to be used in learning. The
first thing we have to consider is the definition of material authenticity. Peacock (1997)
suggests that authentic materials are materials that have been produced to fulfill some social
purposes in the language community. We can also refer to Widdowson's (1990) explanation
of the terms "authentic": Authentic would be material designed for native speakers of English
used in the classroom in a way similar to the one it was designed for. It is almost similar with
what Bacon & Finnemann (1990) suggests that authentic materials are texts produced by
native speakers for a non-pedagogical purpose. For example, a radio news report brought into
1
the class so students discuss the report on pollution in the city where learners live. By those
definitions, we can see that authentic materials are related to language community and native
speakers of English. Senior high school students are still in the process of learning English
and it is difficult for them to use English that is already used in certain English communities.
When a language is supposed to be used for social purpose in a certain language community
–American people for example-, it is not really suitable for non-native students that are still
learning English.
Another definition on authentic material refers to a text that was created to fulfill
some social purpose in the language community in which it was produced (Little, Devitt and
Singleton, 1989). Actually this idea is similar with what Peacock (1997) proposes before, that
the purpose of the authentic materials is for social importance. Newspaper for example, it is
made for the sake of information and communication through reading the news. Teacher can
take material from newspaper, but of course without the teaching-learning purpose.
We can also see Nunan’s explanation of authentic/ non-authentic materials distinction
which consists of five points. Input data can be placed on a continuum from “genuinely
authentic” to non-authentic. That continuum is Genuine: created only for the realm of real
life, not for the classroom, but used in the classroom for language teaching; Altered: there is
no meaning change, the original has been altered in other ways (for example the insertion of
glosses, visual resetting, the addition of visuals, etc.); Adapted: although created for real life,
vocabulary and grammatical structures are changed to simplify the text; Simulated: although
specially written by the author for purpose of language teaching, the author tries to make it
look authentic by using characteristics of genuine texts; Minimal/ Incidental: created for the
classroom with no attempt to make the material appear genuine (2004, pp. 51-52). However,
in this research we will use the two main terms discussed, authentic and non-authentic
materials.
2
Although some definitions above are likely to show that authentic materials to be a
good way in teaching English, not all researchers think that authentic materials are suitable
for all learner. Macneil & Mak (2007) suggest that authenticity is best understood as a social
construction that has been put into place to achieve a particular aim. It means that the use of
material authenticity depends on the goal of the learning process. Some researchers such as
Kilickaya (2004) and Kim (2000) claim that authentic materials can be applied on
intermediate and advanced level students only, while McNeil (1994) and Miller (2005)
believe that all levels of students, even lower levels, are able to use authentic materials.
We will see more on the two points of view toward the use of authentic material. The
first belief is that the use of authentic materials in the classroom is beneficial to the learning
process (Guarento and Morley, 2001). In addition, according to Berardo (2006) authentic
materials have a positive value that makes students highly motivated. The main reason for
using authentic materials in the classroom is to make students not only learn in the “safe”
area and controlled language learning environment, but also to encounter the language used
in the real world. It shows that by using authentic materials, students will be able to apply
their knowledge that they get in the class into the real condition outside the class. Clarke
(1989) also suggests that the language of the real world is what learners need to be exposed to
because that language is uncompromising towards the learner and reflects real-world goals. It
is clear that the authentic material is aimed to prepare the students to be able to deal with the
real world interaction
Berardo (2006) argues that the language in non-authentic texts is artificial and
unvaried, concentrating on something that has to be taught and often containing a series of
“false-text indicators” that include: perfectly formed sentences (all the time); a question
using a grammatical structure, gets a full answer; repetition of structures; very often does not
“read” well. Those indicators show that the non-authentic materials will not make students
3
know how English is really used in a real-world context and apply their knowledge in the
real-world English. Non-authentic materials are actually useful for teaching structures but are
not very good for improving reading skills (for the simple fact that they read unnaturally).
On the other hand, authentic materials are often culturally biased and require more
contextualization and sensitivity in their use. The advantage of topical materials has a flipside
in that materials quickly become outdated (Wardman, 2009). When a text or a material is
culturally biased, it will be difficult to be understood by an English learner who comes from
different culture. Books or other teaching materials made by an American for example, will
have different culture with the students who use those materials in Indonesia. Although it will
be useful for the sake of cross-cultural understanding, but how can we guarantee that they
will always understand the actual information of the material? Also, when the materials are
outdated, their effectiveness will decrease if used in the class for teaching-learning process.
When a topic in the society is no longer “hot” anymore, students are likely to be bored with
that topic.
The disadvantage using authentic materials is also supported by Taylor (1994) who
argues that making a task feel authentic is challenging, but the authenticity of the text is
ultimately comprised by adopting a non-authentic task and the benefits, if any, are lost. Here,
if a teacher tries to make an authentic material to be taught in class, he/she will need to
consider the task as well. The authentic material is a material which functions to fulfill a
social purpose, not a teaching-learning purpose. We will not find any task design from an
authentic material unless we make it first. From this point, we can see that the task in
authentic materials is still taken from non-authentic task, which may omit the advantage of
the authentic material. In fact, the authentic material is aimed to be used in the real world
context, which will be better if it is supported with authentic task as well.
4
Besides, Martinez (2002) argues that too many structures are mixed so lower levels
have a hard time decoding the texts. There are many complicated structures which may be
different from what the students read in the non-authentic materials in their book. Those
complicated structures are not aimed to be used for teaching-learning, but social purpose.
However, the issue of material authenticity is not only about which one is better, but
also about how it is best applied to the teaching and learning process. In many school context
learners generally are not involved in deciding what material to use, instead it is the teacher
who gives and determines the kind of material for them. Students’ opinion is rarely to be
considered in the school decision on the teaching method and material, although the ones
who need the material are the students. The students are also the ones who can measure
which one is better between authentic and non-authentic materials. From that point, I believe
it is necessary to conduct the research which is aimed to know the students’ perception
toward material authenticity. Then, a research question is raised: What is students’ response
toward the material authenticity in the level of Senior High School? This research question is
meant to know what the students’ attitude is toward those two materials, authentic and nonauthentic materials, given to them. In the future, it is hoped that this research can help the
English teacher in Senior High School to understand the learners’ perception toward material
authenticity in learning English and able to deliver the material, either authentic or nonauthentic, based on the students’ needs.
5
THE STUDY
Context of the study
The research was conducted in SMA N 1 Salatiga, a small town in Central Java,
Indonesia, where the researcher collected the data in one class in the grade X. The students
were in the academic year of 2011/2012. As a foreign language, English was not actively
used in oral communication outside the class. However, English was used as a medium of
instruction inside the class.
Participants
The participants of this research were 30 Indonesian students, 11 males and 19
females, from SMA N 1 Salatiga with the age ranged from 15 to 16. The language
background of the students was Indonesian, and English was taught as a foreign language. In
average, they had been studied English for about 7 years.
Data Collection
A twelve-statement-questionnaire (see Appendix 1) given to the participants was used
as the instrument of data collection. As the students’ first language was Indonesian, the
questionnaire was written in the Indonesian language in order to avoid misunderstanding. The
questionnaire was adapted from Peacock’s study (1997) on the effect of material authenticity
toward EFL learners. Unlike Peacock’s questionnaire which used three different categories
(on-task behavior, overall class interest & enthusiasm, and self-reported interest &
enthusiasm), I only used the last two categories (overall class interest & enthusiasm and selfreported interest & enthusiasm), while omitting the first one (on-task behavior) because it
was in the form of the observation and administered by the teacher. Therefore, it was not in
accordance with the purpose of the study.
6
In regard to the two categories, overall class interest & enthusiasm was meant to find
out the students’ attitude toward material authenticity (authentic or non-authentic) in use as
manifested by levels of learner interest, enthusiasm, persistence with the learning task,
concentration, and enjoyment during class. In the questionnaire this category was represented
in statements 1 until 8. For example, statement number 2 “Saya dapat berkonsentrasi dengan
baik pada materi bahasa Inggris yang disampaikan di kelas” (I can concentrate well on the
English material delivered in the class) dealt with the students’ concentration when being
taught using authentic and non-authentic materials. Similarly, statement number 6 “Saya
bersemangat belajar bahasa Inggris” (I am enthusiastic with the learning process) asked the
students’ enthusiasm in the use of authentic and non-authentic materials in learning English.
On the other hand, self-reported interest & enthusiasm was used in order to assess the
value of the teaching materials (authentic or non-authentic) in regards to the level of
meaningfulness, excitement, satisfaction, and variation. In the questionnaire this category was
represented in statements 9 until 12. For example, statement number 9 asked: “Materi bahasa
Inggris yang disampaikan oleh guru di kelas penting untuk proses belajar saya” (The
material is meaningful for my learning process). Here, the questionnaire asked how the
students valued the meaningfulness of authentic as well as non-authentic materials in relation
to their learning English. The same thing also occurred in statement number 11: “Saya puas
dengan materi bahasa Inggris yang telah disampaikan oleh guru di kelas” (The material is
satisfying) which was meant to know the students’ level of satisfaction toward the use of
authentic and non-authentic materials in their learning. In all twelve statements in the
questionnaire, the participants’ responses were set to 4 Likert scales: strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, and strongly agree.
Before the administration of the questionnaire, I had piloted it to five X grade students
excluded the participants. The purpose of the piloting was to make sure the students really
7
understood the statements in the questionnaire, and thus they could supply this research with
their truly intended answers. In the administration of the data collection, the participants were
taught by student teacher doing teaching practicum there. The reason why I choose the
student teacher was to make it easier for me to cooperate with them in facilitating my data
collection which required two kinds of material, authentic and non-authentic, every meeting.
In every data collection day, I was in the class to administer the questionnaire and examined
the students’ attitude when they were given both materials. However, I was not involved in
the teaching and learning process. Before the students were given the questionnaires, I
explained about what was meant by authentic and non-authentic materials first. The students
filled in one set of questionnaire after they had been taught two kinds of materials, authentic
and non-authentic: one questionnaire asking their response toward authentic material and the
same questionnaire for non-authentic one.
As the time given and permitted by the school, the administration of data collection
was conducted for 4 times, and thus, 8 different students’ responses on both authentic and
non-authentic materials were acquired. On the first day teaching, the teacher taught about
“describing people”. The material was taken from FTV.com (fashion TV) for the authentic
material and Interchange Textbook for the non-authentic material. The second day teaching
was about “describing things”. Here, they were shown some brochures about gadgets, food,
and cosmetics taken from the internet for the authentic materials. For the non-authentic
materials, they were shown brochures about trip to Australia taken from the textbook. On the
third day teaching, the students were taught “the degree of comparison”. They were given
text entitled “iPhone vs. Android” taken from the internet for the authentic material and
“Niagara Falls” taken from the text book for the non-authentic one. The last, on the fourth
day teaching, the teacher taught about “news item”. The students were given some news
8
taken from “The Jakarta Post” for the authentic material and pictures of some news sources
taken from the text book for the non-authentic one.
In order to ensure reliable answers from the students, the students filled each set of the
questionnaire (authentic and non-authentic) one after the other: first, the students filled the
questionnaire for the authentic material after the authentic material was delivered, then they
filled the questionnaire for the non-authentic material after the non-authentic one was taught.
The questionnaires for both materials were given at the beginning of the teaching so they
were not distracted in the middle of the teaching. The collection of the questionnaire was at
the end of the class.
Data Analysis
After all the data had been collected, they were counted and compared to see how the
participants’ responses were differed over four meetings. In order to simplify the discussion, I
put all the results of the questionnaires into a table. First, the data were divided into 2
categories, i.e. authentic and non-authentic data. Besides that, I also divided the participants’
responses into two: positive and negative responses. The responses were considered positive,
when they belonged to strongly agree and agree. On the other hand, the responses were
classified into negative answers, when they belonged to strongly disagree and disagree. All of
the responses (both positive and negative) were counted in percentage.
Apart from dividing the participants’ responses into two categories, i.e. authentic and
non-authentic as well as positive and negative, in the analysis I also discussed the findings
from two different categories proposed by Peacock (1997) which covered: (1) overall class
interest & enthusiasm and (2) self-reported interest & enthusiasm. In the overall class interest
9
& enthusiasm I discussed the students’ attitude toward material authenticity (authentic or
non-authentic) in use as manifested by levels of learner interest, enthusiasm, activity,
persistence with the learning task, concentration, and enjoyment during class. While, in the
self-reported interest & enthusiasm I discussed how the students valued teaching materials
(authentic or non-authentic) in regards to the level of meaningfulness, excitement,
satisfaction, and variation. To enrich the discussion, I also linked the findings with some
previous studies as well as some literature review. Finally, based on the overall discussion,
conclusions were drawn.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
To answer the research question “What is students’ response toward the material
authenticity in the level of Senior High School?”, the results of the research showed that the
participants had positive attitudes toward both authentic and non-authentic materials. In the
first meeting, 79.44% of the participants had positive attitudes toward authentic materials,
while 83.33% of them showed the same attitudes toward non-authentic materials. In the
second meeting, 82.78% of the students gave positive answers to the authentic materials and
85.56% of them to non-authentic materials. Similarly, in the third meeting, 78.89% of the
students showed their positive attitude to the authentic materials, while 75.00% of had the
same answer to the non-authentic materials. Finally, in the last meeting, 81.11% of the
students had positive answers to the authentic material and 81.94% of them showed positive
answers as well to the non-authentic ones.
Based on the students’ responses in all questionnaires, it was found that the students
favored non-authentic materials more than the authentic ones in three different meetings, i.e.
meeting 1, 2, and 4. On the other hand, in the meeting 3 the students’ positive response in
10
authentic material was higher than the non-authentic one. However, overall I found that on
average positive attitudes toward non-authentic materials (81.46%) did not significantly
differ from the authentic ones (80.55%). In other words, the result of the study showed that
the students’ attitude toward both materials, authentic and non-authentic, was almost the
same and equal.
Table 1. The percentage of the total responses on both materials,
authentic and non-authentic materials
Authentic Material
Observation day
Meeting 1
Meeting 2
Meeting 3
Meeting 4
Average
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
20.56%
17.22%
21.11%
18.89%
19.45%
Strongly agree
and agree
79.44%
82.78%
78.89%
81.11%
80.55%
Non-authentic Material
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
16.67%
14.44%
25.00%
18.06%
18.54%
Strongly agree
and agree
83.33%
85.56%
75.00%
81.94%
81.46%
In regards to overall class interest & enthusiasm category, I found that the students
gave various responses to both authentic and non-authentic materials. Related to statement
number 1, from all questionnaires, the students admitted that they were more actively
involved in the learning when they were being taught using non-authentic ones (75.83%)
compared to authentic ones (67.50%). In other words, we could say that students’ attitude
manifested by the level of activity was higher when they were being taught using nonauthentic materials. Similarly on the statement number 2, when being asked about their level
of concentration, I found that the students could concentrate more when they were learning
English using non-authentic materials (75.83%) than the authentic ones (70.00%). It might
indicate that the students’ activity and concentration had a sort of relation. When the students
could concentrate in a certain lesson, they might be very active in following that lesson.
11
From these two statements, related to students’ “activity” and “concentration” level,
students gave higher positive attitude to non-authentic materials. Both on statement number 1
and 2 the showed that the score were 75.83%. While, The level of students’ activity and
concentration on the authentic ones were not more than 70.00%.
On the other hand, with regard to the level of enjoyment (statement number 3) in
using authentic and non-authentic materials, I found that the students slight enjoyed learning
English using authentic materials (90.00%) than non-authentic ones (89.17%). The finding
was quite surprising because even though the students were found to be more actively
involved when being taught using non-authentic materials, they enjoyed learning English
more using authentic ones. It could be assumed that authentic materials made the students
happier and gave them more enjoyment than in non-authentic materials when learning
English. The finding might also suggest that there was no relationship between students’
active learning and the level of enjoyment toward the materials, though further analysis
needed to be carried out.
It was also found that on average, regarding to statement number 4, students paid
better attention to the non-authentic materials (80.00%) compared to the authentic ones
(76.67%). It means that the non-authentic materials was more interesting for the students, it
attracted students’ attention more than in the authentic ones. In line with this, Kienbaum
(1986) argued that a material had to relate to or be able to awaken the students' interest. We
might think that authentic materials would catch students’ attention more than the nonauthentic one, but the results of this study showed the other way. It might be because the
level of difficulty of the materials or the familiarity with the topic. On the first day teaching,
they were taught about describing people, the authentic material was taken from the internet
about a famous model in Europe with her pictures. At first when they saw some pictures of
the model they seemed to like it, but after they read the reading passage they did not really
12
like it. When some questions about that model were asked, only one or two students raised
their hand. However, when a reading passage about Hip-hop Style was given, they read it
carefully. More than 5 students raised their hand when the questions about the reading were
asked. At the end of the lesson, I asked some of them which material that they prefer and why
was it, they answer they like the non-authentic material because they could not clearly
understand the words in the authentic materials’ reading passage. Moreover, they felt that
modeling was not really familiar to them. It was different with the non-authentic one, they
could easily understand the words in the passage and answer the questions as well. They also
more familiar with the hip-hop style topic because they often see it on television and teenage
magazine. From that point, it could be inferred that the non-authentic materials had
successfully attracted more attention from the students because the level of difficulty was
lower and the topic was more familiar to the students than the authentic ones.
Statement number 5 also had a strong relation with the level of difficulty. It was
showed that the students preferred to work harder when they were given the non-authentic
materials (92.50%) than when they were given the authentic ones (90.83%). When we talked
about the students’ hard work in following the lesson, we could review again Peacocks’
theory (1997) of overall class interest and enthusiasm which discussed the students’ attitude
toward material authenticity (authentic or non-authentic) in use as manifested by levels of
learner interest, enthusiasm, activity, persistence with the learning task, concentration, and
enjoyment during class. Here, related to students’ hard work, we focused on the term
“persistence with the learning task”. This case might occur because the students thought that
in the non-authentic materials, they had higher possibility to understand the materials and
complete the task than the authentic ones. The authentic materials could be more difficult for
the students, like what Martinez (2002) argues that too many structures are mixed so lower
levels have a hard time decoding the texts. There are many complicated structures which may
13
be different from what the students read in the non-authentic materials in their book. Similar
with the statement number 4, the evidence was when the students were taught about
“describing people”. They found much more difficult words in the reading passage and the
questions. Here, the questions were made by the teacher because the reading passage was
taken from a site page which was not intended for teaching and learning process. While, on
the non-authentic material, the reading passage and the questions were taken from the book
and they were intended to teaching and learning process, so the language was adjusted to the
level of the students in Senior High School. It might cause the students to give up the
authentic materials and prefer to work and focus to the non-authentic ones.
However, the result of questionnaire number 6 showed that 72.50% students on
average felt more enthusiastic when they were being taught using authentic materials
compared to when being taught using non-authentic materials (69.16%). Although students
gave higher attitude of activity, concentration, and persistence; it looked like that they gave
higher enthusiasm to the authentic materials. In line with this, Berardo (2006) states that the
students’ lack of enthusiasm could be caused by the language in non-authentic texts which is
artificial and unvaried, concentrating on something that has to be taught and often containing
a series of “false-text indicators” that include: perfectly formed sentences (all the time); a
question using a grammatical structure, gets a full answer; repetition of structures; very often
does not “read” well. However, in this research some students argued it was not because of
the unvaried non-authentic text which made them less enthusiastic but the way the teacher
delivered the material. It was proven in the first day teaching when they were taught about
“describing people” that they were more enthusiastic because the teacher provided some
pictures of the model and videos when the model act on the catwalk for the authentic
materials. On the second day and third day of teaching, the teacher also provided colorful
pictures and gadget videos for the authentic material when the teaching was about
14
“describing things” and “degree of comparisons”. While, on the last day teaching the students
were provided some newspaper (The Jakarta Post) and asked to interviewed their friends and
people around their class. From those evidences, it could be inferred that authentic materials
could make the students feel more enthusiastic than when they were being taught with nonauthentic materials.
The similar thing occurred in statement number 7, that most of the students stated that
the authentic material (72.50%) was more challenging or motivating them in learning English
than the non-authentic ones (70.83%). Referred to Berardo’s (ibid) statement that nonauthentic material was unvaried, it was believed that that thing made the students feel
enjoyed and excited/ enthusiastic more with authentic materials. Berardo (ibid) also argues
that authentic materials have a positive value that makes students highly motivated.
On the other hand, when being asked about the appropriateness of the materials to the
students’ need (statement number 8), the students answered that the non-authentic materials
were slightly more appropriate (96.67%) than the authentic ones (95.83%). Overall, they feel
that both materials were appropriate for them, it was proven by the number of the students’
response on both materials were more than 95%.
From eight statements which were categorized in the first category, overall class
interest & enthusiasm, it was found that in average students’ positive attitude to the nonauthentic material (81.24%) was slightly higher than their positive attitude to the authentic
ones (79.47%). From those 8 statements, there were 5 statement numbers in which the
students gave higher positive attitude to the non-authentic material than to the authentic ones
(statement number 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8). The authentic materials had higher positive attitude only
in statement number 3, 6, and 7. Because it was shown that the result only differed slightly,
we could say in other words that in regards to the overall class interest & enthusiasm, the
15
students showed higher positive attitude toward non-authentic materials in use as manifested
by levels of learner interest, enthusiasm, activity, persistence with the learning task,
concentration, and enjoyment during class than to the authentic ones.
In regard to self-reported interest & enthusiasm, on average, the students favored
authentic materials (82.70%) more than non-authentic ones (81.87%). Although students
gave high positive attitude toward both authentic and non-authentic materials, the students’
positive attitude was slightly higher on the authentic ones. We could see in the statement
number 9 “Materi bahasa Inggris yang disampaikan oleh guru di kelas penting untuk proses
belajar saya” (The material is meaningful for my learning process). It was shown that the
students valued the authentic materials more meaningful for their learning (98.33%) than the
non-authentic ones (96.67%). It might suggest that the students’ experience when being
taught using authentic material would enrich their English related to the real-world
application. Clarke (1989) suggests that the language of the real world (authentic) is what
learners need to be exposed to because that language is uncompromising towards the learner
and reflects real-world goals. When I asked the students which material which was more
meaningful to them, they answered that both material were important for them, but the
authentic one could give them better simulation of communication in the real world because
they found many real things in the authentic material. From that point, in this case, it could be
inferred that the students valued authentic materials more meaningful than the non-authentic
ones because authentic material was important and meaningful for them to apply in the real
world.
However, in the statement number 10, students felt that the non-authentic material
was more interesting (84.16%) than the authentic ones (81.66%). We might think that the
term interesting/ exciting always related to enthusiasm (statement number 6) since it has
synonymous meaning when we looked up in a dictionary, but it was not. The statement
16
number 10 was on the different category with statement number 6. Statement number 10 was
included in the self-reported interest & enthusiasm which valued the material in use, while
statement number 6 was included in the overall class interest & enthusiasm which was used
to know overall students’ attitude toward the authentic and non-authentic materials. Here, we
could see that the students valued the non-authentic materials interesting which has no
relation with their excitement. They valued the non-authentic material interesting because
could easily understand it. Similar with the evidence in the statement number 4, students
found that the reading passages and the questions on the authentic material had a lot of
difficult words since they were taken from the internet and the questions were made based on
the reading passage by the teacher. In other words, the lower level of difficulty in the nonauthentic materials which made them easier to understand could be the reason why the
students valued non-authentic material more interesting. Kienbaum (1986) argued that a
teacher should choose a material which was appropriate to the students viewed from the
quantity, quality and the level of difficulty. Regarding this, the students might value nonauthentic materials more interesting, although their attitude showed that they were more
enthusiastic when being taught using the authentic ones.
In regards to statement number 11, the students valued the authentic materials as more
satisfying (73.33%) than the non-authentic ones (68.33%). It might indicate that the students
got what they needed in the authentic material. They were more relieved when being taught
using authentic materials. On the other hand, in statement number 12, the students valued the
non-authentic materials as more absorbing (78.33%) than the authentic ones (77.50%). It was
different from statement number 3 which showed that the students enjoyed the authentic
materials more than the non-authentic ones. From this point, it might be indicated that the
students’ level of enjoyment and interest was not always related each other. Though, further
research need to be done for this case. Despite the fact that students gave higher positive
17
attitude to authentic materials in the self-reported interest & enthusiasm category, still, from
overall questionnaires the non-authentic materials had higher students’ positive attitude than
the authentic ones.
CONCLUSION
This study had a purpose to investigate the students’ responses toward the material
authenticity in the context of Senior High School. The result of the study showed that, from 4
meetings of data collection, the students showed inconsistency in responding the 12
statements in the questionnaire. They sometimes responded with higher positive responses
toward one of the materials (authentic or non-authentic) in one day, but responded the other
way on the other day. Related to the overall class interest & enthusiasm category, from those
4 meetings, students seemed to give higher level of interest, enthusiasm, activity, persistence
with the learning task, concentration, and enjoyment during class to the non-authentic
materials. However, in regard to self-reported interest & enthusiasm category, on average
they valued the authentic materials slightly higher than the non-authentic ones. They valued
authentic materials more meaningful, exciting, satisfying, and absorbing than the nonauthentic ones. Though, overall, students had high positive attitudes toward both authentic
and non-authentic materials. Their attitudes toward non-authentic materials were slightly
higher (81.46%) than the authentic ones (80.55%). The differences between those two
materials (authentic and non-authentic) were less than 1.00%.
These results indicated that authentic and non-authentic materials had their own
benefits and weakness. The kind of material, whether it was authentic or non-authentic, might
not really determine the students’ attitude, but the way it was delivered. The other thing was
the level of difficulty which could affect the students’ response toward both materials,
18
authentic and non-authentic. Also, the familiarity to the topic was needed to be considered
since the evidence showed that it affected the students’ attitude toward the materials.
Having known the students’ attitude toward both materials (authentic and nonauthentic), it was suggested that the teacher could deliver the material, whether it was
authentic or non-authentic, which was suitable with the students’ condition. It was also
necessary to ask the students about how the teaching which really fulfilled their needs and in
accordance with their condition. In the future, English teacher in Senior High School was
hoped to understand the learners’ perception toward material authenticity in learning English
and able to deliver the material, either authentic or non-authentic, in accordance with the
students’ needs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to express my thankfulness to Allah S.W.T who always gives me
strength in doing my study. This thesis would not have been possible without the support of
many people. I want to say my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Hendro S. Husada, M.A.
who was abundantly helpful and offered invaluable assistance, support and guidance. A huge
gratitude is also due to my examiner, Prof. Gusti Astika, M.A. without whose knowledge and
assistance this study would not have been completed. I would like to thank to my
participants, X-7 and X-8 students of SMA N 1 Salatiga who were happily helping me filling
in the questionnaire. Thanks to Rhany Dhewani and Maulida Ambarwati as the student
teacher who help me in administering the questionnaire. I also cannot forget the help from
Mas Bagus “Bose” who linked me to the most important sources that I needed. My biggest
19
and warmest thank is for my lovely family who always support me day by day until this day
has come. Without them, I am only a very small piece of dust in a desert. I would also deliver
my thanks to my sweetheart Rachma Puspita Wardani who is always by my side whatever
my condition. I don’t know how I would be if you are not with me. The last but not least, for
my thesis friends and all of 2008’ers, keep the spirit inside your heart to reach your dreams!
REFERENCES:
Berardo, S. A. (2006). The use of authentic materials in the teaching of reading. The Reading
Matrix, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 60-69.
Bacon, S. M. and M. D. Finnemann. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and
strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to
authentic oral and written input. Modern Language Journal Vol. 74 (4), pp. 45973.
Guariento, W. and Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT
Journal, Vol. 55 (4), pp. 347 - 353.
Kienbaum, B. E., A. J. Russel, and S. Welty. (1986). Communicative competence in foreign
language learning with authentic materials. Final Project Report, Purdue
University, Calumet, Indiana.
Kilickaya.F. (2004). Authentic materials and cultural content in EFL classrooms. The Internet
TESL Journal, Vol. 10 (7). Retrieved November 1, 2011, from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kilickaya-AutenticMaterial.html.
Kim, D. (2000). A qualitative approach to the authenticity in the foreign language classroom:
a study of university students learning English in Korea. Texas Papers in Foreign
Language Education, Vol. 5 (1), 189-205.
Little,D., Devitt, S., Singleton, D. (1989). Learning foreign languages from authentic texts:
theory and practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Martinez, A.G. (2002). Authentic materials: an overview. Karen's Linguistic Issues.
Retrieved
November
1,
2011,
from
http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/authenticmaterials.html.
20
McNeill, A. (1994). What makes authentic materials different? the case of English language
materials for educational television. Papers, Annual International Language in
Education Conference, Hong Kong.
Miller, L. (2003). Developing listening skills with authentic materials. ESL Magazine, Vol. 6
(1), pp. 16-19.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task based language teaching: A comprehensively revised edition of
designing task for the communicative classroom. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners.
English Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 51 (2). pp. 144-156.
Taylor, D. (1994). Inauthentic authenticity or authentic inauthenticity? TESL-EJ. Retrieved
November 8, 2011, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej02/a.1.html.
Wardman, C. (2009). Authentic materials in English language teaching: Are they as
important as we think? Academia. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from http://www
.academia.edu.
Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: O.U.P.
21
Deilly Ismet Perkasa
ABSTRACT
Teaching and learning material is an important aspect to increase the students’ interest,
enthusiasm, concentration, and enjoyment in English classroom learning. Since the issue
toward material authenticity becomes a debatable issue among scholars and there are still a
lot of arguments on how material authenticity is best applied, this study was aimed to find out
the senior high-school students’ response toward material authenticity. One research
question was asked “How is students’ response toward the material authenticity in the level
of Senior High School?” Thirty first-grade students of SMA N 1 Salatiga were selected to be
the participants of this study. They were taught using both materials, authentic and nonauthentic for 4 times. After that, they were asked to fill in the questionnaire (Peacock, 1997)
which showed the students’ responses toward both materials, authentic and non-authentic.
Then, the data were analyzed based on two different categories proposed by Peacock (ibid.)
which covered: (1) overall class interest & enthusiasm and (2) self-reported interest &
enthusiasm. The results of the study indicated that the students’ positive responses to
authentic (80.55%) and non-authentic (81.46%) materials did not differ significantly
Key words: Authentic, non-authentic, students’ response, senior high-school
INTRODUCTION
Material authenticity has raised some controversy among experts in the field of
English education. There are two point of views to be debated, which are authentic material is
beneficial for learning and authentic material has disadvantages to be used in learning. The
first thing we have to consider is the definition of material authenticity. Peacock (1997)
suggests that authentic materials are materials that have been produced to fulfill some social
purposes in the language community. We can also refer to Widdowson's (1990) explanation
of the terms "authentic": Authentic would be material designed for native speakers of English
used in the classroom in a way similar to the one it was designed for. It is almost similar with
what Bacon & Finnemann (1990) suggests that authentic materials are texts produced by
native speakers for a non-pedagogical purpose. For example, a radio news report brought into
1
the class so students discuss the report on pollution in the city where learners live. By those
definitions, we can see that authentic materials are related to language community and native
speakers of English. Senior high school students are still in the process of learning English
and it is difficult for them to use English that is already used in certain English communities.
When a language is supposed to be used for social purpose in a certain language community
–American people for example-, it is not really suitable for non-native students that are still
learning English.
Another definition on authentic material refers to a text that was created to fulfill
some social purpose in the language community in which it was produced (Little, Devitt and
Singleton, 1989). Actually this idea is similar with what Peacock (1997) proposes before, that
the purpose of the authentic materials is for social importance. Newspaper for example, it is
made for the sake of information and communication through reading the news. Teacher can
take material from newspaper, but of course without the teaching-learning purpose.
We can also see Nunan’s explanation of authentic/ non-authentic materials distinction
which consists of five points. Input data can be placed on a continuum from “genuinely
authentic” to non-authentic. That continuum is Genuine: created only for the realm of real
life, not for the classroom, but used in the classroom for language teaching; Altered: there is
no meaning change, the original has been altered in other ways (for example the insertion of
glosses, visual resetting, the addition of visuals, etc.); Adapted: although created for real life,
vocabulary and grammatical structures are changed to simplify the text; Simulated: although
specially written by the author for purpose of language teaching, the author tries to make it
look authentic by using characteristics of genuine texts; Minimal/ Incidental: created for the
classroom with no attempt to make the material appear genuine (2004, pp. 51-52). However,
in this research we will use the two main terms discussed, authentic and non-authentic
materials.
2
Although some definitions above are likely to show that authentic materials to be a
good way in teaching English, not all researchers think that authentic materials are suitable
for all learner. Macneil & Mak (2007) suggest that authenticity is best understood as a social
construction that has been put into place to achieve a particular aim. It means that the use of
material authenticity depends on the goal of the learning process. Some researchers such as
Kilickaya (2004) and Kim (2000) claim that authentic materials can be applied on
intermediate and advanced level students only, while McNeil (1994) and Miller (2005)
believe that all levels of students, even lower levels, are able to use authentic materials.
We will see more on the two points of view toward the use of authentic material. The
first belief is that the use of authentic materials in the classroom is beneficial to the learning
process (Guarento and Morley, 2001). In addition, according to Berardo (2006) authentic
materials have a positive value that makes students highly motivated. The main reason for
using authentic materials in the classroom is to make students not only learn in the “safe”
area and controlled language learning environment, but also to encounter the language used
in the real world. It shows that by using authentic materials, students will be able to apply
their knowledge that they get in the class into the real condition outside the class. Clarke
(1989) also suggests that the language of the real world is what learners need to be exposed to
because that language is uncompromising towards the learner and reflects real-world goals. It
is clear that the authentic material is aimed to prepare the students to be able to deal with the
real world interaction
Berardo (2006) argues that the language in non-authentic texts is artificial and
unvaried, concentrating on something that has to be taught and often containing a series of
“false-text indicators” that include: perfectly formed sentences (all the time); a question
using a grammatical structure, gets a full answer; repetition of structures; very often does not
“read” well. Those indicators show that the non-authentic materials will not make students
3
know how English is really used in a real-world context and apply their knowledge in the
real-world English. Non-authentic materials are actually useful for teaching structures but are
not very good for improving reading skills (for the simple fact that they read unnaturally).
On the other hand, authentic materials are often culturally biased and require more
contextualization and sensitivity in their use. The advantage of topical materials has a flipside
in that materials quickly become outdated (Wardman, 2009). When a text or a material is
culturally biased, it will be difficult to be understood by an English learner who comes from
different culture. Books or other teaching materials made by an American for example, will
have different culture with the students who use those materials in Indonesia. Although it will
be useful for the sake of cross-cultural understanding, but how can we guarantee that they
will always understand the actual information of the material? Also, when the materials are
outdated, their effectiveness will decrease if used in the class for teaching-learning process.
When a topic in the society is no longer “hot” anymore, students are likely to be bored with
that topic.
The disadvantage using authentic materials is also supported by Taylor (1994) who
argues that making a task feel authentic is challenging, but the authenticity of the text is
ultimately comprised by adopting a non-authentic task and the benefits, if any, are lost. Here,
if a teacher tries to make an authentic material to be taught in class, he/she will need to
consider the task as well. The authentic material is a material which functions to fulfill a
social purpose, not a teaching-learning purpose. We will not find any task design from an
authentic material unless we make it first. From this point, we can see that the task in
authentic materials is still taken from non-authentic task, which may omit the advantage of
the authentic material. In fact, the authentic material is aimed to be used in the real world
context, which will be better if it is supported with authentic task as well.
4
Besides, Martinez (2002) argues that too many structures are mixed so lower levels
have a hard time decoding the texts. There are many complicated structures which may be
different from what the students read in the non-authentic materials in their book. Those
complicated structures are not aimed to be used for teaching-learning, but social purpose.
However, the issue of material authenticity is not only about which one is better, but
also about how it is best applied to the teaching and learning process. In many school context
learners generally are not involved in deciding what material to use, instead it is the teacher
who gives and determines the kind of material for them. Students’ opinion is rarely to be
considered in the school decision on the teaching method and material, although the ones
who need the material are the students. The students are also the ones who can measure
which one is better between authentic and non-authentic materials. From that point, I believe
it is necessary to conduct the research which is aimed to know the students’ perception
toward material authenticity. Then, a research question is raised: What is students’ response
toward the material authenticity in the level of Senior High School? This research question is
meant to know what the students’ attitude is toward those two materials, authentic and nonauthentic materials, given to them. In the future, it is hoped that this research can help the
English teacher in Senior High School to understand the learners’ perception toward material
authenticity in learning English and able to deliver the material, either authentic or nonauthentic, based on the students’ needs.
5
THE STUDY
Context of the study
The research was conducted in SMA N 1 Salatiga, a small town in Central Java,
Indonesia, where the researcher collected the data in one class in the grade X. The students
were in the academic year of 2011/2012. As a foreign language, English was not actively
used in oral communication outside the class. However, English was used as a medium of
instruction inside the class.
Participants
The participants of this research were 30 Indonesian students, 11 males and 19
females, from SMA N 1 Salatiga with the age ranged from 15 to 16. The language
background of the students was Indonesian, and English was taught as a foreign language. In
average, they had been studied English for about 7 years.
Data Collection
A twelve-statement-questionnaire (see Appendix 1) given to the participants was used
as the instrument of data collection. As the students’ first language was Indonesian, the
questionnaire was written in the Indonesian language in order to avoid misunderstanding. The
questionnaire was adapted from Peacock’s study (1997) on the effect of material authenticity
toward EFL learners. Unlike Peacock’s questionnaire which used three different categories
(on-task behavior, overall class interest & enthusiasm, and self-reported interest &
enthusiasm), I only used the last two categories (overall class interest & enthusiasm and selfreported interest & enthusiasm), while omitting the first one (on-task behavior) because it
was in the form of the observation and administered by the teacher. Therefore, it was not in
accordance with the purpose of the study.
6
In regard to the two categories, overall class interest & enthusiasm was meant to find
out the students’ attitude toward material authenticity (authentic or non-authentic) in use as
manifested by levels of learner interest, enthusiasm, persistence with the learning task,
concentration, and enjoyment during class. In the questionnaire this category was represented
in statements 1 until 8. For example, statement number 2 “Saya dapat berkonsentrasi dengan
baik pada materi bahasa Inggris yang disampaikan di kelas” (I can concentrate well on the
English material delivered in the class) dealt with the students’ concentration when being
taught using authentic and non-authentic materials. Similarly, statement number 6 “Saya
bersemangat belajar bahasa Inggris” (I am enthusiastic with the learning process) asked the
students’ enthusiasm in the use of authentic and non-authentic materials in learning English.
On the other hand, self-reported interest & enthusiasm was used in order to assess the
value of the teaching materials (authentic or non-authentic) in regards to the level of
meaningfulness, excitement, satisfaction, and variation. In the questionnaire this category was
represented in statements 9 until 12. For example, statement number 9 asked: “Materi bahasa
Inggris yang disampaikan oleh guru di kelas penting untuk proses belajar saya” (The
material is meaningful for my learning process). Here, the questionnaire asked how the
students valued the meaningfulness of authentic as well as non-authentic materials in relation
to their learning English. The same thing also occurred in statement number 11: “Saya puas
dengan materi bahasa Inggris yang telah disampaikan oleh guru di kelas” (The material is
satisfying) which was meant to know the students’ level of satisfaction toward the use of
authentic and non-authentic materials in their learning. In all twelve statements in the
questionnaire, the participants’ responses were set to 4 Likert scales: strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, and strongly agree.
Before the administration of the questionnaire, I had piloted it to five X grade students
excluded the participants. The purpose of the piloting was to make sure the students really
7
understood the statements in the questionnaire, and thus they could supply this research with
their truly intended answers. In the administration of the data collection, the participants were
taught by student teacher doing teaching practicum there. The reason why I choose the
student teacher was to make it easier for me to cooperate with them in facilitating my data
collection which required two kinds of material, authentic and non-authentic, every meeting.
In every data collection day, I was in the class to administer the questionnaire and examined
the students’ attitude when they were given both materials. However, I was not involved in
the teaching and learning process. Before the students were given the questionnaires, I
explained about what was meant by authentic and non-authentic materials first. The students
filled in one set of questionnaire after they had been taught two kinds of materials, authentic
and non-authentic: one questionnaire asking their response toward authentic material and the
same questionnaire for non-authentic one.
As the time given and permitted by the school, the administration of data collection
was conducted for 4 times, and thus, 8 different students’ responses on both authentic and
non-authentic materials were acquired. On the first day teaching, the teacher taught about
“describing people”. The material was taken from FTV.com (fashion TV) for the authentic
material and Interchange Textbook for the non-authentic material. The second day teaching
was about “describing things”. Here, they were shown some brochures about gadgets, food,
and cosmetics taken from the internet for the authentic materials. For the non-authentic
materials, they were shown brochures about trip to Australia taken from the textbook. On the
third day teaching, the students were taught “the degree of comparison”. They were given
text entitled “iPhone vs. Android” taken from the internet for the authentic material and
“Niagara Falls” taken from the text book for the non-authentic one. The last, on the fourth
day teaching, the teacher taught about “news item”. The students were given some news
8
taken from “The Jakarta Post” for the authentic material and pictures of some news sources
taken from the text book for the non-authentic one.
In order to ensure reliable answers from the students, the students filled each set of the
questionnaire (authentic and non-authentic) one after the other: first, the students filled the
questionnaire for the authentic material after the authentic material was delivered, then they
filled the questionnaire for the non-authentic material after the non-authentic one was taught.
The questionnaires for both materials were given at the beginning of the teaching so they
were not distracted in the middle of the teaching. The collection of the questionnaire was at
the end of the class.
Data Analysis
After all the data had been collected, they were counted and compared to see how the
participants’ responses were differed over four meetings. In order to simplify the discussion, I
put all the results of the questionnaires into a table. First, the data were divided into 2
categories, i.e. authentic and non-authentic data. Besides that, I also divided the participants’
responses into two: positive and negative responses. The responses were considered positive,
when they belonged to strongly agree and agree. On the other hand, the responses were
classified into negative answers, when they belonged to strongly disagree and disagree. All of
the responses (both positive and negative) were counted in percentage.
Apart from dividing the participants’ responses into two categories, i.e. authentic and
non-authentic as well as positive and negative, in the analysis I also discussed the findings
from two different categories proposed by Peacock (1997) which covered: (1) overall class
interest & enthusiasm and (2) self-reported interest & enthusiasm. In the overall class interest
9
& enthusiasm I discussed the students’ attitude toward material authenticity (authentic or
non-authentic) in use as manifested by levels of learner interest, enthusiasm, activity,
persistence with the learning task, concentration, and enjoyment during class. While, in the
self-reported interest & enthusiasm I discussed how the students valued teaching materials
(authentic or non-authentic) in regards to the level of meaningfulness, excitement,
satisfaction, and variation. To enrich the discussion, I also linked the findings with some
previous studies as well as some literature review. Finally, based on the overall discussion,
conclusions were drawn.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
To answer the research question “What is students’ response toward the material
authenticity in the level of Senior High School?”, the results of the research showed that the
participants had positive attitudes toward both authentic and non-authentic materials. In the
first meeting, 79.44% of the participants had positive attitudes toward authentic materials,
while 83.33% of them showed the same attitudes toward non-authentic materials. In the
second meeting, 82.78% of the students gave positive answers to the authentic materials and
85.56% of them to non-authentic materials. Similarly, in the third meeting, 78.89% of the
students showed their positive attitude to the authentic materials, while 75.00% of had the
same answer to the non-authentic materials. Finally, in the last meeting, 81.11% of the
students had positive answers to the authentic material and 81.94% of them showed positive
answers as well to the non-authentic ones.
Based on the students’ responses in all questionnaires, it was found that the students
favored non-authentic materials more than the authentic ones in three different meetings, i.e.
meeting 1, 2, and 4. On the other hand, in the meeting 3 the students’ positive response in
10
authentic material was higher than the non-authentic one. However, overall I found that on
average positive attitudes toward non-authentic materials (81.46%) did not significantly
differ from the authentic ones (80.55%). In other words, the result of the study showed that
the students’ attitude toward both materials, authentic and non-authentic, was almost the
same and equal.
Table 1. The percentage of the total responses on both materials,
authentic and non-authentic materials
Authentic Material
Observation day
Meeting 1
Meeting 2
Meeting 3
Meeting 4
Average
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
20.56%
17.22%
21.11%
18.89%
19.45%
Strongly agree
and agree
79.44%
82.78%
78.89%
81.11%
80.55%
Non-authentic Material
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
16.67%
14.44%
25.00%
18.06%
18.54%
Strongly agree
and agree
83.33%
85.56%
75.00%
81.94%
81.46%
In regards to overall class interest & enthusiasm category, I found that the students
gave various responses to both authentic and non-authentic materials. Related to statement
number 1, from all questionnaires, the students admitted that they were more actively
involved in the learning when they were being taught using non-authentic ones (75.83%)
compared to authentic ones (67.50%). In other words, we could say that students’ attitude
manifested by the level of activity was higher when they were being taught using nonauthentic materials. Similarly on the statement number 2, when being asked about their level
of concentration, I found that the students could concentrate more when they were learning
English using non-authentic materials (75.83%) than the authentic ones (70.00%). It might
indicate that the students’ activity and concentration had a sort of relation. When the students
could concentrate in a certain lesson, they might be very active in following that lesson.
11
From these two statements, related to students’ “activity” and “concentration” level,
students gave higher positive attitude to non-authentic materials. Both on statement number 1
and 2 the showed that the score were 75.83%. While, The level of students’ activity and
concentration on the authentic ones were not more than 70.00%.
On the other hand, with regard to the level of enjoyment (statement number 3) in
using authentic and non-authentic materials, I found that the students slight enjoyed learning
English using authentic materials (90.00%) than non-authentic ones (89.17%). The finding
was quite surprising because even though the students were found to be more actively
involved when being taught using non-authentic materials, they enjoyed learning English
more using authentic ones. It could be assumed that authentic materials made the students
happier and gave them more enjoyment than in non-authentic materials when learning
English. The finding might also suggest that there was no relationship between students’
active learning and the level of enjoyment toward the materials, though further analysis
needed to be carried out.
It was also found that on average, regarding to statement number 4, students paid
better attention to the non-authentic materials (80.00%) compared to the authentic ones
(76.67%). It means that the non-authentic materials was more interesting for the students, it
attracted students’ attention more than in the authentic ones. In line with this, Kienbaum
(1986) argued that a material had to relate to or be able to awaken the students' interest. We
might think that authentic materials would catch students’ attention more than the nonauthentic one, but the results of this study showed the other way. It might be because the
level of difficulty of the materials or the familiarity with the topic. On the first day teaching,
they were taught about describing people, the authentic material was taken from the internet
about a famous model in Europe with her pictures. At first when they saw some pictures of
the model they seemed to like it, but after they read the reading passage they did not really
12
like it. When some questions about that model were asked, only one or two students raised
their hand. However, when a reading passage about Hip-hop Style was given, they read it
carefully. More than 5 students raised their hand when the questions about the reading were
asked. At the end of the lesson, I asked some of them which material that they prefer and why
was it, they answer they like the non-authentic material because they could not clearly
understand the words in the authentic materials’ reading passage. Moreover, they felt that
modeling was not really familiar to them. It was different with the non-authentic one, they
could easily understand the words in the passage and answer the questions as well. They also
more familiar with the hip-hop style topic because they often see it on television and teenage
magazine. From that point, it could be inferred that the non-authentic materials had
successfully attracted more attention from the students because the level of difficulty was
lower and the topic was more familiar to the students than the authentic ones.
Statement number 5 also had a strong relation with the level of difficulty. It was
showed that the students preferred to work harder when they were given the non-authentic
materials (92.50%) than when they were given the authentic ones (90.83%). When we talked
about the students’ hard work in following the lesson, we could review again Peacocks’
theory (1997) of overall class interest and enthusiasm which discussed the students’ attitude
toward material authenticity (authentic or non-authentic) in use as manifested by levels of
learner interest, enthusiasm, activity, persistence with the learning task, concentration, and
enjoyment during class. Here, related to students’ hard work, we focused on the term
“persistence with the learning task”. This case might occur because the students thought that
in the non-authentic materials, they had higher possibility to understand the materials and
complete the task than the authentic ones. The authentic materials could be more difficult for
the students, like what Martinez (2002) argues that too many structures are mixed so lower
levels have a hard time decoding the texts. There are many complicated structures which may
13
be different from what the students read in the non-authentic materials in their book. Similar
with the statement number 4, the evidence was when the students were taught about
“describing people”. They found much more difficult words in the reading passage and the
questions. Here, the questions were made by the teacher because the reading passage was
taken from a site page which was not intended for teaching and learning process. While, on
the non-authentic material, the reading passage and the questions were taken from the book
and they were intended to teaching and learning process, so the language was adjusted to the
level of the students in Senior High School. It might cause the students to give up the
authentic materials and prefer to work and focus to the non-authentic ones.
However, the result of questionnaire number 6 showed that 72.50% students on
average felt more enthusiastic when they were being taught using authentic materials
compared to when being taught using non-authentic materials (69.16%). Although students
gave higher attitude of activity, concentration, and persistence; it looked like that they gave
higher enthusiasm to the authentic materials. In line with this, Berardo (2006) states that the
students’ lack of enthusiasm could be caused by the language in non-authentic texts which is
artificial and unvaried, concentrating on something that has to be taught and often containing
a series of “false-text indicators” that include: perfectly formed sentences (all the time); a
question using a grammatical structure, gets a full answer; repetition of structures; very often
does not “read” well. However, in this research some students argued it was not because of
the unvaried non-authentic text which made them less enthusiastic but the way the teacher
delivered the material. It was proven in the first day teaching when they were taught about
“describing people” that they were more enthusiastic because the teacher provided some
pictures of the model and videos when the model act on the catwalk for the authentic
materials. On the second day and third day of teaching, the teacher also provided colorful
pictures and gadget videos for the authentic material when the teaching was about
14
“describing things” and “degree of comparisons”. While, on the last day teaching the students
were provided some newspaper (The Jakarta Post) and asked to interviewed their friends and
people around their class. From those evidences, it could be inferred that authentic materials
could make the students feel more enthusiastic than when they were being taught with nonauthentic materials.
The similar thing occurred in statement number 7, that most of the students stated that
the authentic material (72.50%) was more challenging or motivating them in learning English
than the non-authentic ones (70.83%). Referred to Berardo’s (ibid) statement that nonauthentic material was unvaried, it was believed that that thing made the students feel
enjoyed and excited/ enthusiastic more with authentic materials. Berardo (ibid) also argues
that authentic materials have a positive value that makes students highly motivated.
On the other hand, when being asked about the appropriateness of the materials to the
students’ need (statement number 8), the students answered that the non-authentic materials
were slightly more appropriate (96.67%) than the authentic ones (95.83%). Overall, they feel
that both materials were appropriate for them, it was proven by the number of the students’
response on both materials were more than 95%.
From eight statements which were categorized in the first category, overall class
interest & enthusiasm, it was found that in average students’ positive attitude to the nonauthentic material (81.24%) was slightly higher than their positive attitude to the authentic
ones (79.47%). From those 8 statements, there were 5 statement numbers in which the
students gave higher positive attitude to the non-authentic material than to the authentic ones
(statement number 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8). The authentic materials had higher positive attitude only
in statement number 3, 6, and 7. Because it was shown that the result only differed slightly,
we could say in other words that in regards to the overall class interest & enthusiasm, the
15
students showed higher positive attitude toward non-authentic materials in use as manifested
by levels of learner interest, enthusiasm, activity, persistence with the learning task,
concentration, and enjoyment during class than to the authentic ones.
In regard to self-reported interest & enthusiasm, on average, the students favored
authentic materials (82.70%) more than non-authentic ones (81.87%). Although students
gave high positive attitude toward both authentic and non-authentic materials, the students’
positive attitude was slightly higher on the authentic ones. We could see in the statement
number 9 “Materi bahasa Inggris yang disampaikan oleh guru di kelas penting untuk proses
belajar saya” (The material is meaningful for my learning process). It was shown that the
students valued the authentic materials more meaningful for their learning (98.33%) than the
non-authentic ones (96.67%). It might suggest that the students’ experience when being
taught using authentic material would enrich their English related to the real-world
application. Clarke (1989) suggests that the language of the real world (authentic) is what
learners need to be exposed to because that language is uncompromising towards the learner
and reflects real-world goals. When I asked the students which material which was more
meaningful to them, they answered that both material were important for them, but the
authentic one could give them better simulation of communication in the real world because
they found many real things in the authentic material. From that point, in this case, it could be
inferred that the students valued authentic materials more meaningful than the non-authentic
ones because authentic material was important and meaningful for them to apply in the real
world.
However, in the statement number 10, students felt that the non-authentic material
was more interesting (84.16%) than the authentic ones (81.66%). We might think that the
term interesting/ exciting always related to enthusiasm (statement number 6) since it has
synonymous meaning when we looked up in a dictionary, but it was not. The statement
16
number 10 was on the different category with statement number 6. Statement number 10 was
included in the self-reported interest & enthusiasm which valued the material in use, while
statement number 6 was included in the overall class interest & enthusiasm which was used
to know overall students’ attitude toward the authentic and non-authentic materials. Here, we
could see that the students valued the non-authentic materials interesting which has no
relation with their excitement. They valued the non-authentic material interesting because
could easily understand it. Similar with the evidence in the statement number 4, students
found that the reading passages and the questions on the authentic material had a lot of
difficult words since they were taken from the internet and the questions were made based on
the reading passage by the teacher. In other words, the lower level of difficulty in the nonauthentic materials which made them easier to understand could be the reason why the
students valued non-authentic material more interesting. Kienbaum (1986) argued that a
teacher should choose a material which was appropriate to the students viewed from the
quantity, quality and the level of difficulty. Regarding this, the students might value nonauthentic materials more interesting, although their attitude showed that they were more
enthusiastic when being taught using the authentic ones.
In regards to statement number 11, the students valued the authentic materials as more
satisfying (73.33%) than the non-authentic ones (68.33%). It might indicate that the students
got what they needed in the authentic material. They were more relieved when being taught
using authentic materials. On the other hand, in statement number 12, the students valued the
non-authentic materials as more absorbing (78.33%) than the authentic ones (77.50%). It was
different from statement number 3 which showed that the students enjoyed the authentic
materials more than the non-authentic ones. From this point, it might be indicated that the
students’ level of enjoyment and interest was not always related each other. Though, further
research need to be done for this case. Despite the fact that students gave higher positive
17
attitude to authentic materials in the self-reported interest & enthusiasm category, still, from
overall questionnaires the non-authentic materials had higher students’ positive attitude than
the authentic ones.
CONCLUSION
This study had a purpose to investigate the students’ responses toward the material
authenticity in the context of Senior High School. The result of the study showed that, from 4
meetings of data collection, the students showed inconsistency in responding the 12
statements in the questionnaire. They sometimes responded with higher positive responses
toward one of the materials (authentic or non-authentic) in one day, but responded the other
way on the other day. Related to the overall class interest & enthusiasm category, from those
4 meetings, students seemed to give higher level of interest, enthusiasm, activity, persistence
with the learning task, concentration, and enjoyment during class to the non-authentic
materials. However, in regard to self-reported interest & enthusiasm category, on average
they valued the authentic materials slightly higher than the non-authentic ones. They valued
authentic materials more meaningful, exciting, satisfying, and absorbing than the nonauthentic ones. Though, overall, students had high positive attitudes toward both authentic
and non-authentic materials. Their attitudes toward non-authentic materials were slightly
higher (81.46%) than the authentic ones (80.55%). The differences between those two
materials (authentic and non-authentic) were less than 1.00%.
These results indicated that authentic and non-authentic materials had their own
benefits and weakness. The kind of material, whether it was authentic or non-authentic, might
not really determine the students’ attitude, but the way it was delivered. The other thing was
the level of difficulty which could affect the students’ response toward both materials,
18
authentic and non-authentic. Also, the familiarity to the topic was needed to be considered
since the evidence showed that it affected the students’ attitude toward the materials.
Having known the students’ attitude toward both materials (authentic and nonauthentic), it was suggested that the teacher could deliver the material, whether it was
authentic or non-authentic, which was suitable with the students’ condition. It was also
necessary to ask the students about how the teaching which really fulfilled their needs and in
accordance with their condition. In the future, English teacher in Senior High School was
hoped to understand the learners’ perception toward material authenticity in learning English
and able to deliver the material, either authentic or non-authentic, in accordance with the
students’ needs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to express my thankfulness to Allah S.W.T who always gives me
strength in doing my study. This thesis would not have been possible without the support of
many people. I want to say my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Hendro S. Husada, M.A.
who was abundantly helpful and offered invaluable assistance, support and guidance. A huge
gratitude is also due to my examiner, Prof. Gusti Astika, M.A. without whose knowledge and
assistance this study would not have been completed. I would like to thank to my
participants, X-7 and X-8 students of SMA N 1 Salatiga who were happily helping me filling
in the questionnaire. Thanks to Rhany Dhewani and Maulida Ambarwati as the student
teacher who help me in administering the questionnaire. I also cannot forget the help from
Mas Bagus “Bose” who linked me to the most important sources that I needed. My biggest
19
and warmest thank is for my lovely family who always support me day by day until this day
has come. Without them, I am only a very small piece of dust in a desert. I would also deliver
my thanks to my sweetheart Rachma Puspita Wardani who is always by my side whatever
my condition. I don’t know how I would be if you are not with me. The last but not least, for
my thesis friends and all of 2008’ers, keep the spirit inside your heart to reach your dreams!
REFERENCES:
Berardo, S. A. (2006). The use of authentic materials in the teaching of reading. The Reading
Matrix, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 60-69.
Bacon, S. M. and M. D. Finnemann. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and
strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to
authentic oral and written input. Modern Language Journal Vol. 74 (4), pp. 45973.
Guariento, W. and Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT
Journal, Vol. 55 (4), pp. 347 - 353.
Kienbaum, B. E., A. J. Russel, and S. Welty. (1986). Communicative competence in foreign
language learning with authentic materials. Final Project Report, Purdue
University, Calumet, Indiana.
Kilickaya.F. (2004). Authentic materials and cultural content in EFL classrooms. The Internet
TESL Journal, Vol. 10 (7). Retrieved November 1, 2011, from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kilickaya-AutenticMaterial.html.
Kim, D. (2000). A qualitative approach to the authenticity in the foreign language classroom:
a study of university students learning English in Korea. Texas Papers in Foreign
Language Education, Vol. 5 (1), 189-205.
Little,D., Devitt, S., Singleton, D. (1989). Learning foreign languages from authentic texts:
theory and practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Martinez, A.G. (2002). Authentic materials: an overview. Karen's Linguistic Issues.
Retrieved
November
1,
2011,
from
http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/authenticmaterials.html.
20
McNeill, A. (1994). What makes authentic materials different? the case of English language
materials for educational television. Papers, Annual International Language in
Education Conference, Hong Kong.
Miller, L. (2003). Developing listening skills with authentic materials. ESL Magazine, Vol. 6
(1), pp. 16-19.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task based language teaching: A comprehensively revised edition of
designing task for the communicative classroom. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners.
English Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 51 (2). pp. 144-156.
Taylor, D. (1994). Inauthentic authenticity or authentic inauthenticity? TESL-EJ. Retrieved
November 8, 2011, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej02/a.1.html.
Wardman, C. (2009). Authentic materials in English language teaching: Are they as
important as we think? Academia. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from http://www
.academia.edu.
Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: O.U.P.
21