Second Language Research & Practice November 2022, Volume 3, ISSN 1094-3501 Issue 1 pp. 34–61 RESEARCH ARTICLE Ideological views of reading in contemporary commercial French textbooks: A content analysis Kristen Michelson, Texas Tech University Ashley Anderson, Texas Tech University Abstract Reading instructional practices in foreign language (FL) classrooms often involve asking students to read a text aloud, answer comprehension questions about its referential meanings, and exchange personal opinions about topics evoked in the text. Such practices hint at ideological views of FL reading as a skill and springboard for communication. In an effort to identify the locus of such beliefs and practices, this article reports on a descriptive content analysis of nine beginning and intermediate commercial French textbooks to investigate the way reading, and readers, are positioned. Drawing on theoretical foundations of social semiotics, multiliteracies, and derivatives of Bloom’s Taxonomy, the study addresses two questions: (a) What kinds of texts are included in beginning and intermediate French textbooks? and (b) What kinds of tasks are students called upon to engage in during reading instruction? Findings reveal ideological views of reading as a mostly linguistic, cognitively oriented exercise, and assumptions that less linguistically proficient readers are less cognitively mature. The article concludes by problematizing textbooks as constructed discourses that prevent paradigm change in education and proposes an expansion of an existing textbook reading sequence as an Open Education Resource that engages learners in a critical multimodal analysis of an authentic text and its adaptation. Keywords: textbook analysis, foreign language reading, multiliteracies, discourse, OER APA Citation: Michelson, K., & Anderson, A. (2022). Ideological views of reading in contemporary commercial French textbooks: A content analysis. Second Language Research & Practice, 3(1), 34–61. https://doi.org/10125/69867 Introduction This study emerges out of an accumulation of the authors’ experiences teaching novice and intermediate French as a foreign language (FL), through which we have made several patterned and persistent observations about reading practices. First, instructional techniques for reading often consist of asking students to take turns reading aloud then answering comprehension questions about referential meanings, a practice that has also been documented in second language reading scholarship (e.g., Stoller et al., 2013; Swaffar & Arens, 2005). Second, informal surveys of French FL students in which they have been asked to complete the open-ended sentences “Reading is…” and “Reading in French is…”, have typically yielded responses that reading is important, fun, fundamental, or interesting, and that reading in French is challenging and difficult, although easier than speaking. Third, in a recent classroom-based study of FL reading practices conducted by the first author and co-authors (manuscript in preparation), many students’ in-class conversations around a focal text primarily consisted of exchanging opinions about the topic evoked in the text, with far less attention to interpreting textual propositions, despite guided reading questions intended to orient students to textual meanings. These experiences hint at ideological views of FL reading as a skill and as a springboard for oral conversations about cultural issues and beg the question of how exactly students have been socialized to Copyright © 2022 Michelson & Anderson Michelson & Anderson 35 read in an FL. Recognizing that socialization into ways of reading may be occurring in many places, this study focuses on one potential source, textbooks, given that teachers are often strongly guided by textbooks (Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013). As the Douglas Fir Group (2016), drawing on the research of Guerrettaz and Johnston (2013), attested: The type of materials used in formal learning contexts such as L2 classrooms have been shown to play a significant role in shaping students’ contexts of interaction and participation structures, demonstrating that they are not only a primary source of the design of curriculum, but also highly influential to the scope and types of instructional interactions that occur within that learning community. (p. 29) Put another way, textbooks operate as a sort of ideological method imposed on students. As part of a broader research agenda examining reading practices of novice and intermediate French FL learners, we analyzed nine beginning and intermediate French textbooks to investigate ideological views of reading represented across these materials. Our inquiry was guided by the following research questions: 1. What kinds of texts are included in beginning and intermediate French textbooks? 2. What kinds of tasks are students called upon to engage in during reading instruction? Background and Literature Review Conceptual Background We define texts as material artifacts that emerge from an intentioned assemblage of semiotic resources, whether linguistic, visual, spatial, audio, or gestural, and reflect and constitute culture. Informed by social semiotic theory (Halliday, 1978; Kress, 2010), texts are not only material representations, but are bound up in social processes of communication; they are created by human actors whose identities, cultures, and values underlie the choice of material resources. They are interpreted in turn through the identities, histories, and interests of the human actors who enter into dialogue with texts from their particular situated positions (Gee, 2001). As artifacts of culture (Swaffar, 1992), texts provide insight into cultural discourses, or particular ways of talking about cultural practices, values, and experiences. In Hallidayan terms, texts do not merely contain representations; they organize these representations to naturalize reality and enact social relations (Halliday, 1994). We define tasks as invitations to learners, communicated through written language, to interact with a text; for example, reflect on its meanings, connect meanings to their own experiences, or engage in stylistic analysis. Given our focus on texts as cultural artifacts tied to social purposes, we oriented our first question around Kern’s (2000) framework of linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of literacy, which treats literacy as more than mere cognitive practices. In addition, given the oft-cited bifurcation in collegiate FL programs (Byrnes, 2008; MLA, 2007; Paesani & Allen, 2020) where lower-level courses may not always afford students opportunities for critical thinking (Urlaub & Uelzmann, 2013), we oriented the second question around levels of cognitive complexity, drawing on Afflerbach, Cho & Kim’s (2015) hierarchical framework of reading tasks, which was modeled after Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Previous Research on Foreign Language Textbooks Textbooks are an important site of inquiry given their prominent role in the classroom. Despite representing only one among many different types of materials recruited in service of a curriculum, textbooks are often used as the de facto curriculum (Guerrettaz & Johnson, 2013) and are leaned on substantially by novice instructors. This heavy reliance on textbooks is problematic, however, given that they both reflect and construct discourses and represent “institutionalized opinions” (Meyer & Rosenblatt, 1987, p. 247, as cited in Canale, 2016, p. 226). Numerous studies have demonstrated repeatedly the ideological nature of textbooks when it comes to FL teaching, particularly for the way they promote standard language varieties 36 Second Language Research & Practice (Burns Al Masaeed, 2018; Etienne & Sax, 2009), eclipse important cultural and historical contexts of language use (Chapelle, 2016), represent a narrow range of identities in terms of target language speakers (Vajta, 2019), or naively portray harmonious race relations (Huang, 2019). Examining Text Type Through Literacy Frameworks Studies investigating text types in foreign language (FL) materials abound; however, research has tended to focus on examining readability factors and inherent progressions of complexity (e.g., Carcámo Morales, 2020). Although literacy-oriented frameworks have been used to examine instructor-created materials in local contexts (e.g., Menke & Paesani, 2019; Rowland et al., 2014), few researchers have explored textbooks from a multiliteracies perspective. One notable exception is Lange (2018), who conducted a content and pedagogical analysis of text types and their related tasks in three German textbooks popular in university-level German courses. Text types were categorized as situational, for texts featuring fictitious textbook characters, public, for everyday texts such as newspaper articles or ads, private for everyday texts such as personal emails or postcards, and artistic, for cartoons, songs, and literary texts. Public texts were most frequently represented across all three textbooks. Despite the wide range of text types identified, Lange found notable gaps. Specifically, text types with which one might typically interact in everyday life (e.g., cover letter for a job interview, housing ad for finding accommodations) were absent from the textbooks analyzed. Taking a holistic approach to texts and tasks, Lange also conducted a pedagogical analysis of a sampling of chapters to investigate whether the reading tasks promoted literacy-oriented skills such as considering the complexities of language, form-meaning connections, genre, culture, and register. Among the most common types of tasks accompanying texts were comprehension questions about specific facts or details, questions asking about students’ personal experiences or beliefs, or questions promoting expanded discussion of a text’s content or topic. Very few tasks promoted language awareness or critical reflection on text designs. Examining Cognitive Complexity of Reading Task Types A predominant focus of studies investigating task types in textbooks is on levels of cognitive demand of questions around reading passages. Adli and Mahmoudi (2017) used Bloom’s taxonomy to analyze reading comprehension questions in four different English as a Foreign Language (EFL) textbooks used in Iran. Focusing on textbooks intended for use in elementary and advanced classrooms, they noted the number of questions at each level in Blooms’ taxonomy and found that both elementary- and advanced-level textbooks contained lower- rather than higher-level question types. Alnofal (2018) analyzed the relative frequencies of question types and used Bloom’s taxonomy to examine two sources: a first-year English as a Foreign Language (EFL) textbook and 15 classroom teachers using that textbook. The researcher found that the most frequently represented question types by teachers (63.63%) and by textbooks (60.88%) was at the level of comprehension, thus tapping lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Furthermore, only one teacher question and no textbook questions were found to tap the higher level of synthesis. Teacher questions were more distributed across levels of cognitive complexity, but textbooks tended to be predominantly focused on the lower-order skills of knowledge and comprehension. Using a chi square analysis, Alnofal also compared the distribution of lower- and higher-level question types and found that lower-level question types were significantly more represented among teachers (87.42%) and textbooks (70.06%) than higher- level questions. In an investigation of the presence of critical reading strategies in EFL textbooks used in Jordan, Al-Husban (2019) conducted a content analysis of the reading passages and exercises of the ninth grade EFL textbook, Action Pack, looking for the presence of ten à priori critical reading strategies drawn from the literature. Nine out of ten reading strategies were present in the textbook; notably, generating questions was absent. Researchers attributed this absence to materials and teacher practices. First, questions about reading passages are generally already provided for students in textbooks, and second, classroom teachers typically ask most questions, reflecting an ideology of top-down teaching. Surface-level processes such as identifying facts versus opinions were most common, but more complex processes of comparing and contrasting information were least common. Overall, these studies reveal a tendency in textbooks to treat reading as an opportunity to hone bottom-up processes and skills of recall, or to use texts as Michelson & Anderson 37 springboards for conversation. Although important for fostering particular skills in a FL, a disproportionate focus on these lower-level skills construes learners as intellectual novices and misses opportunities for teaching reading as critical practice. Methodology The current study fits within the tradition of materials analysis, with a specific focus on analyzing textbooks. Different from materials evaluation, which examines materials in use (Graves, 2019; Weninger & Kiss, 2015), a materials analysis focuses primarily on content. This study consists of a descriptive content analysis (Patton, 2015) of textbook materials. Corpus and Data Preparation We determined our corpus by contacting the top three publishers of commercial FL textbooks (Cengage, McGraw Hill, Pearson) and inquiring which French textbooks were the most widely used at the beginning and intermediate levels of language learning. Their responses determined the nine samples in our corpus, among which are seven beginning and two intermediate textbooks (see Appendix A). Next, we examined each textbook and identified sections that involved interpreting visual and written texts. Textbook sections analyzed were either designated specifically for reading instruction or culture-learning. To prepare the data for coding, we created one Word document for each textbook on which we documented the text type with a brief description, and then transcribed all related reading questions. Overview of Analysis Word documents for each textbook were imported into NVivo 12 (QSR International, 2018) and coded according to two different units of analysis—texts and tasks—each through three different analyses. An overview of all six analyses, their theoretical frames, and relevant data sets is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Overview of Analyses, Theoretical Frames, and Relevant Data Sets Unit of Focus of Analysis Frameworks Used or Data Set Analysis Adapted in Coding and Theming the Data Texts Degrees of multimodality Data driven analysis All texts (n = 242) Genres Data driven analysis All texts (n = 242) Context of production (a.k.a Simonsen (2019) All texts (n = 242) degree of authenticity) Tasks Dimensions of literacy Kern (2000) All tasks (n = 1641) Degree of cognitive Data driven analysis and Subset: tasks classified under complexity Afferbach et al. (2015) “cognitive” or “cognitive/linguistic” (n = 1205) Degree of multimodal Data driven analysis Subset: tasks (n = 189) engagement relevant to multimodal texts (n = 49) 38 Second Language Research & Practice Both researchers collaboratively coded a sample set of data to align coding practices. Next, each researcher coded tasks and texts separately, then met to compare codes. Any discrepancies in codes were discussed until consensus was reached. Text Types We examined each text to determine the semiotic modes present (e.g., language, image, layout, font) and classified texts on a continuum of multimodality from multimodal to written language only. Next, we coded each text with a genre type (e.g., map, movie synopsis, online article). Types were then grouped into everyday genres, literary genres, and informational texts. Finally, we coded texts on a continuum of authenticity: authentic, adapted, or contrived. However, following Simonsen’s (2019) admonition to the field about the problems associated with the label “authentic texts” and his suggestion to adopt the terms “learner-centered” and “non-learner-centered” (p. 255), we later renamed these categories as follows: created outside of educational contexts, adapted for learners, and created for learners, to emphasize their contexts of production. Where available, we relied on textbook references to determine whether the text had been created for learners or adapted from another source. In cases where source information was provided, we traced the source through internet searches to determine whether the text had been adapted. Texts categorized as literary works were considered excerpted rather than adapted and therefore categorized as “created outside of educational contexts.” Tasks To analyze tasks, we performed action coding (Saldaña, 2013), using action words to describe the processes being asked of learners (e.g., scanning for information, skimming for gist, predicting content from genre knowledge, evaluating word choice, etc.). Next, we organized these actions into: (a) dimensions of literacy (Kern, 2000), and (b) levels of cognitive complexity. Dimensions of literacy as defined by Kern (2000) include linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions. In some cases, tasks were considered to represent more than one literacy dimension simultaneously and were coded singly with the descriptor “cognitive and linguistic” rather than being assigned two different codes. For levels of cognitive complexity, first we developed a three-point scale (low, mid, high), as seen in Table 2. We later revised and refined our codes using Afflerbach et al.’s (2015) hierarchical framework of reading tasks as a guide. This framework draws upon Krathwohl’s (2002) revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). Subsequently, we ran two separate analyses of the proportions of low, mid, and high complexity tasks among beginning and intermediate textbooks, respectively. Table 2 Levels of Cognitive Complexity of Task Type Low actions involving just observing or scanning for information at surface level where students can respond to questions without full comprehension Mid actions involving organizing or integrating new information, interpreting new information; categorizing and classifying High actions involving integrating new information to make a judgment; problem-solving; drawing inferences beyond surface-level propositions; analyzing textual design choices; using textual evidence to justify a perspective; inferencing Finally, focusing only on the subset of texts classified as multimodal (n=49), we coded tasks for degrees of engagement with their multimodal features, with the data driving three different processes. Multimodal processes indicated tasks that explicitly asked students to engage with multimodal elements in the text. Combined processes included open-ended questions where the reader could hypothetically use multimodal Michelson & Anderson 39 or linguistic features to complete the task. Linguistic processes included tasks that would hypothetically lead the reader to use the linguistic mode to respond and would not require engagement with multimodal features. To ensure coding precision, we used Nvivo’s features of queries and coding stripes. First, we used a basic coding query for code pairs that were conceptually similar in order to confirm that no units of analysis contained more than one code within a single analysis. Second, we conducted a visual inspection of the coding stripes to ensure there was no duplicate coding within a single analysis. Findings RQ1: What kinds of texts are included in beginning and intermediate French textbooks? Semiotic Modes Four types of texts were found along a continuum of multimodality: written language only; primarily written language with an image or illustration; primarily language with integrated multimodal features such as different fonts, colors, or layout; and multimodal texts. Written language only texts were those expressed through the linguistic mode only (see example in Figure 2). If there was a photo on the same textbook page, adjacent to the written language text but not part of the original textual landscape (i.e., in the case of texts adapted for learners), we assumed that the photo or illustration had been added as an advance organizer or schema activator by the textbook producers. Texts classified as primarily language with an image or illustration were those where a photo or illustration was endemic to the original text (i.e., in the case of texts adapted for learners). Texts considered primarily language with integrated multimodal features were those that did not include any images but contained other important modal features such as different fonts, colors, or layouts that would be especially salient for a particular genre (such as charts or graphs). Finally, multimodal texts were those that contained complex systems of multiple semiotic modes such as color, layout, written language, graphics (for example, infographics or posters). Figures 1 through 4 depict a representative sample of text types for each category. Figure 5 illustrates the proportion of texts representing different semiotic modes for the data sample of texts examined. Figure 1 Written Language Only 40 Second Language Research & Practice Figure 2 Primarily Language with an Image or Illustration (Scullen et al., 2020, p. 391). Michelson & Anderson 41 Figure 3 Primarily Written Language with Integrated Multimodal Features (Scullen et al., 2020, p. 121). 42 Second Language Research & Practice Figure 4 Multimodal Text (Anderson & Dolidon, 2020, p. 58-59) Michelson & Anderson 43 Figure 5 Proportion of Texts Representing Different Semiotic Modes Genres The most prevalent genres discovered were everyday genres (47.52%), followed by informational texts (31.40%), and literary texts (21.07%). Examples of everyday genres included online articles (see Figure 6), song lyrics, infographics, and interviews. Literary genres included poems, short stories, or excerpts from longer literary works (e.g., novels). Informational texts included texts created for learners about a particular cultural practice. Figure 6 Example of an Article Online (Anderson & Dolidon, 2020, p. 279-280) 44 Second Language Research & Practice Contexts of Production Overall, we found that texts created for learners were most prevalent (44.63%), followed by texts created outside of educational contexts (33.88%), then adapted texts (21.49%). Figure 7 depicts the proportion of text types by contexts of production. Figure 7 Proportion of Text Types Based on Context of Production To explore further the intersections between genres and contexts of production, we ran a crosstab analysis in Nvivo of the three macro categories of genres identified and the three contexts of production. We found that literary texts were primarily unmodified (even if truncated); everyday texts were equally created outside of educational contexts, adapted, or created for learners; and informational texts were primarily created for learners (see Table 3). Table 3 Crosstab of Genres and Contexts of Production Literary Everyday Genres Info Texts Created outside educational contexts 47 34 0 Adapted 1 40 9 Created for learners 3 38 67 RQ2: What kinds of tasks are students called upon to engage in during reading instruction? Dimensions of Literacy As noted above, tasks were grouped along Kern’s (2000) literacy dimensions. However, rather than a one- task-one-literacy-dimension approach, because some tasks simultaneously tapped more than one dimension, we created categories of overlapping literacy dimensions. Having expanded the number of Michelson & Anderson 45 categories, we assigned only one category to each task, yielding the following results: cognitive (63.92%), sociocultural (17%), cognitive/linguistic (9.51%), linguistic (8.04%), sociocultural/linguistic (1.52%). Within the cognitive dimension, the top three most represented tasks were skimming and scanning (435), determining explicit textual meanings (188), and reflecting critically on the text (109). Within a sociocultural dimension, the top three task types were making personal connections and comparisons (158), making cultural connections and comparisons (80), and discussing social issues related to the topic (22). Cognitive/linguistic dimensions included restating text meanings (64), inferring meanings (59), and producing new texts (33). The top three linguistically oriented tasks were vocabulary building (52), transforming linguistic structures (36), and working with grammatical form (33). Finally, sociocultural/linguistic tasks included only one category: practicing oral communication (25). Levels of Cognitive Complexity Between the two textbook levels, beginning and intermediate, there was a marked difference in the proportions of levels of cognitive complexity. Most tasks in beginning textbooks were low-level (63.80%), whereas high-level tasks were least frequent (13.07%). For intermediate textbooks, the proportion appeared more evenly divided, however low-level tasks still held the majority (45.23%), followed by high-level (28.27%) and mid-level (26.50%). Taking a closer look at task types in both beginning and intermediate textbooks, low-level tasks displayed the least diversity. The most common low-level tasks were scanning for information (60.09%) and determining what the text says explicitly (26.70%). The least common low- level tasks were scanning for/identifying cognates (0.71%) and reading or listening to a text/song/poem (0.85%). Among mid-level tasks, there was a greater variety: The most frequent tasks represented taking a stance related to the topic (15.38%), inferring meanings of figurative and literal language (15.05%), and predicting content from visuals/title/key information (13.71%); the least common mid-level tasks involved predicting content from structure (1.34%) and sequencing (1.34%). Among high-level tasks, the most common were interpreting meaning from indirect characterizations (12.38%), summarizing/synthesizing (11.88%), and analyzing text style (10.89%). The least common high-level tasks were those involving students producing their own texts, such as creating a scenario/story based on the text (1.49%) and reproducing the genre (1.98%). Figure 8 depicts a comparison of the proportion of task types in terms of levels of complexity for beginning (n=7) and intermediate (n=2) textbooks together. Tables 4, 5, and 6 present the proportion of high, mid, and low-level task types. Figure 8 Comparison of the Proportion of Task Types (levels of complexity) for Beginning (n=7) and Intermediate (n=2) Textbooks 46 Second Language Research & Practice Table 4 Proportion of High-Level Task Types Task Percentage of Instances N umber of Instances Summarizing or synthesizing 12.38% 25 Stating the main idea of phrase or text 11.88% 24 Critiquing the text 10.89% 22 Identifying rhetorical purpose 10.40% 21 Reproducing the genre 8.42% 17 Transposing text (new genre) 8.42% 17 Extending the story 6.44% 13 Creating a new scenario or story based on text 5.94% 12 Restating meanings 3.96% 8 Interpreting meaning from style analysis 3.47% 7 Interpreting author meaning or perspective 2.97% 6 Analyzing text style 2.97% 6 Creating a title for the text 2.97% 6 Perspective taking or role playing 2.97% 6 Interpreting meaning from indirect characterizations 1.98% 4 Analyzing author’s approach or techniques 1.49% 3 Evaluating word choice 0.99% 2 Making a character portrait 0.99% 2 Writing interview questions 0.50% 1 Table 5 Proportion of Mid-Level Task Types Task Percentage of Instances Number of Instances Taking a stance related to the text-topic 15.38% 46 Inferring meanings of figurative and literal language 15.05% 45 Predicting content from visuals, title, key information 13.71% 41 Reading between the lines 12.37% 37 Classifying and categorizing information 7.69% 23 Interpreting the text across modes (text & image) 6.69% 20 Analyzing textual events and dynamics Considering text 5.35% 16 structure and patterns 4.68% 14 Comparing & contrasting 4.35% 13 Relating information (matching) 4.35% 13 Predicting content from genre knowledge Skimming for 2.68% 8 gist 2.34% 7 Michelson & Anderson 47 Visualizing & imagining content 2.01% 6 Sequencing 1.34% 4 Predicting content from structure 1.34% 4 Updating predictions 0.67% 2 Table 6 Proportion of Low-Level Task Types Task Percentage instances Number of instances Scanning for information 60.09% 423 Determining what the text says explicitly 26.70% 188 Activating prior topic knowledge 7.10% 50 Identifying key elements 1.56% 11 Inferring meaning from cognates 1.14% 8 Describing an image 0.99% 7 Inferring meaning from known structures 0.85% 6 Reading or listening to text-song-poem 0.85% 6 Scanning for & identifying cognates 0.71% 5 Degree of Multimodal Engagement Three different types of engagement with multimodal texts were found: linguistic, multimodal, and combined. Among the degrees of engagement with multimodal text features, we found linguistic processes to be the most prevalent type of engagement (50.26%), followed by combined processes (45.50%), and finally multimodal processes (4.23%). Notably, this latter percentage accounted for only eight tasks. In other words, for the 49 multimodal texts that appeared across the nine textbooks analyzed, only eight tasks asked students to engage with multiple semiotic modes beyond the linguistic mode. Additionally, these task types were present in only four (i.e., fewer than 50%) of the textbooks sampled. Table 7 provides an illustrative example for each category. Table 7 Examples of Types of Multimodal Engagement Multimodal processes Look at the graphic elements. How do they help you understand the text? Combined (multimodal Le texte est une publicité pour quelle sorte du tourisme ? [The text is an and/or linguistic processes) advertisement for what kind of tourism?] Linguistic processes For individuals taking a course à temps complet [full time], how much time is typically involved? What levels of instruction are offered? Subsidies are provided for childcare (frais de garde); what other types of subsidies are offered? 48 Second Language Research & Practice Discussion Our content analysis of texts and tasks associated with reading across nine commercial French textbooks revealed four predominant messages across the corpus. We discuss each one in turn and demonstrate the way these messages crystallize in the discourse systems prevalent in FL education. We also explore potential pathways for moving toward pedagogical practices that more aptly reflect recent scholarship in FL education, and indeed contemporary literacy practices. We then propose a pedagogical expansion that engages teachers and learners in the critical examination of texts, and, indirectly, examination of the some of the ways textbooks perpetuate ideological discourses. First, reading in the analyzed textbooks is seen primarily as an exercise in decoding written language texts. Texts in our corpus were predominantly expressed through the linguistic mode, with multimodal texts representing fewer than a quarter of texts. Given the historical focus on language as a linguistic system as the object of study, it is not surprising that the number of multimodal texts was limited, and when included, that the degree of engagement with these texts was limited to their linguistic modes. What is more, for many of the adapted texts, the nature of the adaptation was to strip away the multimodal elements from the original text and to preserve the linguistic mode. Such adaptations ignore the fundamental contributions of multimodal semiotic elements to the overall meanings in texts thereby “missing important building blocks in the process of meaning making and meaning negotiation” (Álvarez Valencia, 2016, p. 113). Second, everyday texts are perceived as inferior to literary texts, suggested by the fact that the former were more frequently adapted for learners than literary texts. This finding reifies an underlying view of literary texts as pure; by keeping the original form intact, deference is given to the author. The literary canon, itself “nothing more than a construct, fashioned by particular people for particular reasons at a certain time” (Eagleton, 1983, p. 15 as cited in Kern & Schulz, 2005, p. 385), maintains its prestige status. Everyday texts, by contrast, serve as everyone’s texts to use and modify. Such a distinction makes sense considering the social and historical conditions of each text type; on the one hand, the literary text, traditionally existing in an era of print culture; on the other, everyday texts, which are largely artifacts of the contemporary digital landscape and subject to fewer copyrights (c.f. Blyth, 2014a for discussion of reading as cultural and historical practice). Third, less linguistically proficient readers are assumed to be less cognitively mature. Our finding that the levels of cognitive complexity are more balanced (e.g., fewer lower-level tasks) in the intermediate textbooks implies an assumption that beginning and intermediate FL learners are not equipped to tackle cognitively complex tasks. Whereas certain number of tasks did correspond to higher-level cognitive processes and invited students to engage in textual analysis and critical reading, the majority remained anchored in lower-level processes focused on superficial, bottom-up processes such as skimming and scanning and determining explicit textual meanings, particularly among beginning textbooks. However, novice language skills should not equate with novice cognitive processes. As Freahat and Smadi (2014) suggested, “higher-level questions are effective tools for stimulating thinking and developing other cognitive skills such as problem solving and decision making” (p. 1812). Although developing bottom-up reading skills are an important component of reading, they seem to come at the expense of more critical textual analysis. Finally, reading is primarily a cognitively oriented exercise, given the predominance of tasks such as predicting content, inferencing, or critically reflecting on meanings. Sociocultural (17%) and sociocultural/linguistic (1.52%) tasks made up only 18.52% percent of all tasks. Through tasks anchored primarily in cognitive dimensions of literacy, the exercise of reading remains focused on text-internal factors and the individual mentalistic processes learners engage in interpretation. In contrast, text-external factors (such as the social contexts of a text’s production, author identity, and so forth) that are equally critical to textual understanding are negligible. Within sociocultural dimensions of literacy, most tasks involved using the text as a springboard for more personal conversations, supporting Stoller et al.’s (2013) claim that post-reading generally involves “‘personalization’ activities in written or spoken form, during Michelson & Anderson 49 which [students] state an opinion about the reading or connect some aspect of the passage to their own lives” (p. 3). Such an over-privileging of students’ personal responses fails to engage learners in critical examination of texts in their own right and consists of “a fundamentally solipsistic approach to the literary that eclipses notions of alterity or otherness” (Kern and Schulz, 2005, p. 384). What is more, such reader- response activities and development of oral communication become ensnared in a codependent relationship: The bias toward oral communication in lower-level FL classrooms co-opts reading activities as springboards for oral communication practice, all while “the primacy of the personal…conforms to oral proficiency and communicatively oriented approaches to language teaching” (Kern & Schultz, 2005, p. 384). Such messages are problematic not only for the way they constrain possibilities for learner action and literacy development, but also for the way they perpetuate and reflect larger discourses about language learners and about language in general. As has been argued elsewhere (Dupuy & Michelson, 2021), it is ideological discourses that constrain possibilities for paradigm change in education. The messages uncovered in this study reflect and perpetuate all-too-familiar macro discourses in FL education of a monolingual language learner with goals of reaching “native-speaker” proficiency through extensive oral practice and acute manipulation of grammar and vocabulary. This idealized language learner’s trajectory is bolstered through these textbook materials by maximal exposure to examples of target language structures in texts and extensive opportunities for conversational practice. The metaphorically linear trajectory of language learning maps onto a presumed parallel cognitive development trajectory whereby a “deficient” learner must first achieve linguistic mastery before engaging in more complex literacy practices. Communication is reduced to an exercise in decoding language and transacting messages rather than as an exercise in interpreting webs of cultural messages. Pedagogical Expansions and Potential Solutions Given the problematic nature of textbooks, Canale (2016) suggested that FL teachers and curriculum designers focus on “how to design classroom environments in which learners can understand textbook discourse as a genre which operates socially, historically and ideologically, and not as the accumulation of uncontestable factual (verbal and visual) evidence about language and culture” (p. 240). Potential responses to Canale’s invitation reside in the Open Education movement. As Blyth (2014b) explained: [O]pen education emphasizes the use of digital materials that are easily edited and personalized, an anytime/anywhere approach to learning, the integration of knowledge and social networks in order to connect people to ideas, and a belief that knowledge is best understood as a creative process of co-constructed meaning within a community of practice. (p. 662) Open Educational Resources (OERs), which can take the form of textbooks, individual lessons, or single pedagogical resources (e.g., images, videos, or slideshows), serve to democratize education by providing affordable, widely distributable, on-demand resources that can be created by anyone and licensed according to one of six Creative Commons attributions (Creative Commons, n.d.; see also Blyth & Thoms, 2021). More broadly, Open Educational Practices (OEP), including open pedagogy, involve learners taking an active role in finding and curating learning resources. Beyond issues of cost and access, an important benefit of OER/OEP is the ability to circumvent constraints imposed by the publishing industry that are more likely to make task and text choices based on users’ expectations in the interest of marketability, rather than on pedagogically sound principles. In the following section, we offer an OER in the form of a sample instructional sequence that builds upon an existing textbook sequence from our corpus. In addition to expanding possibilities for students to engage in a broader range of literacies, this sequence, through its method of comparing an original text with its textbook adaptation, responds to Canale’s (2016) call by laying bare the limitations on meaning making that textbooks impose, thereby serving as a springboard for students and instructors to begin contesting textbook discourses. The lesson begins with an adapted text and asks students to search for the original to engage in an analysis of the design choices made in both the original text and the adaptation. Engaging with 50 Second Language Research & Practice the original text is important because as Swaffar (1992) suggested: As artifacts of the second language’s culture, such texts present the second language learner with social functions familiar in many, perhaps all, cultures. Yet at the same time they depict concrete situations that are culture specific. In other words, authentic texts offer readers case studies of fundamental human relationships, needs, and social institutions such as kinship, ritual behavior, social status, governance, or eating arrangements as they are manifested in the unfamiliar culture. (p. 238) Figure 9 depicts the original text alongside its corresponding textbook adaptation. Figure 9 Screen Shot of Original (Lefilliâtre, 2017) and Adapted Text (Scullen, Pons & Valdman, 2020, p. 391) A Sample Lesson Expansion We draw upon the multiliteracies framework (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015) as well as multimodal pedagogies (e.g., Álvarez Valencia, 2016) to guide engagement with texts, and demonstrate how critical textual analysis can be integrated alongside language development when well scaffolded. Frameworks such as Learning by Design (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015), and specifically the Knowledge Processes (KPs) of experiencing, conceptualizing, analyzing, and applying, offer heuristics for guiding students’ engagement with texts, including reflecting critically not only on what texts say, but importantly, how texts come to mean through the semiotic designs that authors choose (see Appendix B). Pedagogical Rationale Phase 1 provides an entry point into the texts by asking students to identify surface features. The instructor must know target language vocabulary for semiotic modes, which can be taught explicitly through context Michelson & Anderson 51 (i.e., saying and pointing) and reinforced through repeated activities of analyzing modes of different texts in subsequent lessons. In this phase, students use simple sentences (There is…; There is no…) to identify the presence or absence of certain features. Once surface features have been noticed through a naming task, students consider the contexts of production of the original text (Phase 2). Having potentially identified features such as the logo, email and twitter icons, navigation bar, names of specific newspaper sections, color, and typeface features (e.g., bold, hyperlinks), students can further rely on their familiarity with web genres to deduce that this is an online newspaper. After identifying different base units and their modal features, the class conducts a deeper analysis of salient modes. In this text and its adaptation, the most striking differences are evident in the photos and in the lack of semiotic elements such as the logo, the navigation bar, and the social media icons. Logos are carefully designed emblems that reflect an organization and attempt to capture values within a succinct, recognizable, yet unique form. As such, logos can provide clues into the values or perspectives underlying a particular news source. In Phase 3, students are guided in a multimodal logo analysis, taking note of the colors, shapes, words, font style. Language needed for this task might include a review of vocabulary for colors and potentially some new words for shapes. Students are guided to respond in simple sentences linked with “because” to show cause and effect. Their interpretation of the logo can then be linked to speculations about the type of newspaper, leading to further predictions about this text’s contexts of production. Knowing the origin of this article allows students to make more precise predictions about the slant or perspectives they might encounter in this text based on what they know about this newspaper or other articles or sections of the newspaper that they are encouraged to explore. If students are exposed to texts in their original habitats, their cumulative experiences over time might help them predict patterns of perspectives in a particular news source. Indeed, pre-reading tasks that accompany this particular textbook adaptation ask students to use title and subtitles to make predictions about content and to reflect on the image and whether it resonates with students’ own experiences. Adding semiotic elements such as logo and other base units that are part of the original textual habitat provides students with a more comprehensive context through which to make more informed predictions. After conducting a deeper analysis of the logo, students are then guided to analyze the photo (Phase 4). Students begin by naming objects in the room depicted or the people pictured in the photos in terms of friend or kinship relationships, using prepositions of location to describe where they are in relation to one another. From a content perspective, both photos are similar: a family (presumably) hangout out and watching TV with their devices. On closer look, one might get different ideas about the family dynamics or values between these two images. In the adaptation, the books on a shelf might infer that this family reads, even if they also watch a lot of TV. The image in the adapted text depicts two of the younger members interacting with one another; however, the original image depicts all family members engaged in solitary side-by-side activities. Students are then guided into a more critical analysis of the photos using adjectives for describing facial expressions, allowing an interpretation of the perceived emotions of the individuals pictured. In the original image, the individuals seem expressionless and zoned out; in the adaptation, one of the adults appears to be smiling, as do the younger children, and they all appear to be interacting with one another. In the adapted text, the colors are overall brighter and give the impression of a sunny happy family. Next, students depart from their descriptive analysis to form a judgment about the relationships between the people pictured. Further, taking a critical perspective, students ponder what kind of family is featured (e.g., opposite sex couples, a boy and a girl) and what kind of family is not featured (e.g., same sex couples) and critically reflect on the messages being promoted by the author, whether or not intentionally. Through this expanded engagement with semiotic modes beyond the linguistic mode, students then read the linguistic portion of the text (Phase 6), either from the original source or from the adaptation. Existing questions that accompany the textbook center around comprehension checks and developing linguistic agility through morphological awareness and could be integrated at this stage. 52 Second Language Research & Practice After reading the text, students then revisit questions about the social purpose of the article (Phase 7) and the contexts of production of the text (Phase 8) by taking note of other elements appearing in the original web page, such as navigation bars, headings and titles of drop-down categories, and hyperlinks, to again make a judgment about the website type. Depending on the language level of students, this discussion might be conducted in L1. A further clue into contexts of production can be gained by exploring other articles from this same journal. Thus, students could be asked to find two other articles (Phase 9) and note their titles, hypothesizing about the kinds of topics that are featured in this newspaper, and further considering the rhetorical purpose of the focal text through an exercise in comparison. Using grammatical structures for making comparisons with adjectives and using a pre-provided list of potential adjectives for describing the rhetorical purpose of online articles, students can compare purposes of the additional articles they have found. Yet another possibility for fostering critical reflection on these texts is to ask students to consider choices made in the adaptation (Phase 10). For instance, they might evaluate what has been gained or lost in the process, and whether the omitted information changes their understanding of the article. In this adaptation, an entire paragraph about other media has been omitted, which includes a paragraph with hyperlinks to social media influencers. After carefully considering a fuller set of the semiotic resources that contribute to textual meanings, students embark on an Internet search (Phase 11) for data about media consumption practices in other countries (in this case, other Francophone countries), synthesize their findings in a chart or graph depicting these statistics, and present their findings orally to the class. To foster a fully attentive audience, classmates can evaluate the findings and speculate on possible reasons for any differences uncovered, in terms of underlying cultural practices or perspectives or bias in reporting. This expanded lesson promotes potentially deeper reflections on texts and the way that texts create and reflect cultural and personal meanings. It additionally exposes students to cultural discourses and practices around media consumption and use, for example, the number of hours of TV watching, or the various platforms, influencers promoted, and media sources. Additionally, the lesson fosters students’ ongoing language development by organizing the oral communication tasks around specific lexicogrammatical forms that students have already learned and can re-use in a meaningful communicative context. The relatively few additional language structures needed to participate in these conversations in the target language are vocabulary for different semiotic modes and for talking about online articles. This vocabulary can be provided through short, constrained lists that can be easily introduced via a gloss prior to or during the lesson. Not only does this lesson help foster textual awareness, but it also teaches students to question textbooks as constructed discourses (Huang, 2011). Summary Stripped of its original semiotic features, the textbook version eclipses important genre cues that could be used to scaffold interpretation. Furthermore, through this adaptation, authorial perspectives and meanings intended through the original text’s designs may also be obscured. Guiding students through a comparative analysis of the original text and its adaptation provides opportunities for critical reflection on textual meanings while also promoting language development. The original textbook pre-reading activity asks, “Now look at the photo that accompanies the article. Does it resonate with your own experience? In what ways?” (Scullen et al., 2020, p. 390), asking students to use the photo as a schema-activating device. This kind of question focuses the reading activity on a comparison of the student’s personal lifeworld with the lifeworld of those depicted. Students are further encouraged to remain in their own lifeworld through the textbook post-reading tasks, which ask students how many hours of TV they watch, on which platforms, what programs they watch, and what their future television-watching habits might be. Yet Fang et al. (2014) suggested that a critical paradigm: aims to empower students to read both the ‘word’/screen and the ‘world’ through analysing, Michelson & Anderson 53 evaluating, problematising, and transforming texts. It emphasizes the development of critical consciousness about text and language/media use and promotes thoughtful critique and eventual disruption of social inequalities and hegemonic power structure. (p. 56) The proposed expansion invites students to use the entire semiotic context to gain nuanced perspectives about potential underlying bias in contemporary media and the ideological positions that underlie textual adaptations. Furthermore, it engages students with the cultural context of the text on its own terms, such that discussing and comparing their own media consumption practices can then take place within a much broader cultural context than the four walls of the classroom. Conclusion The initial catalysts for our inquiry were persistent observations of FL learners’ perceptions and practices around reading in French, perhaps the most notable of which were observations that carefully structured reading prompts informed by multiliteracies pedagogies did little to engage students in the kind of textual thinking repeatedly called for in FL scholarship (e.g., Byrnes, 2006, Paesani, 2018). Students’ FL reading practices were deeply ingrained. The messages and discourses uncovered in this content analysis of nine commercial French FL textbooks decidedly locate these practices in the very materials used to teach reading. In fact, what is being taught through these materials is not necessarily reading, but rather a stance that views texts as containers of the linguistic structures deemed important to the trajectory of the idealized FL learner. Further, students are taught ways of interacting with texts and peers that prioritize linguistic practice and exchange of personal reflections. As Kern (2000) suggested: We are socialized to read in certain ways for particular purposes in particular settings, and to hold certain beliefs about texts….We abide by certain interpretive conventions established within the discourse communities to which we belong and we gain entry into new discourse communities by learning their respective conventions through apprenticeship. (p. 117) The FL classroom is one very real discourse community in which learners are socialized to read. Consequently, it behooves us as FL educators to think carefully about the kinds of ideological messages about reading and FL learning that we may be perpetuating through our materials and our modeling of interactions with said materials, and instead seek ways of countering these discourses: on our own, in collaboration with colleagues, and in tandem with our students. References Adli, N., & Mahmoudi, A. (2017). Reading comprehension questions in EFL textbooks and learners’ levels. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(7), 590–595. http://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0707.14 Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., & Kim, J. (2015). Conceptualizing and assessing higher-order thinking in reading. Theory Into Practice, 54, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044367 Al-Husban, N. A. (2019). An investigation of the inclusion of critical reading strategies in Jordanian EFL textbooks: A content analysis. Dirasat, 46(1), 779–789. https://doi.org/10.35516/0102-046-985- 045 Alnofal, A. I. S. (2018). Cognitive levels in Saudi EFL teachers’ and textbook questions. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(4), 695–701. http://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0904.04 Álvarez Valencia, J. A. (2016). Meaning making and communication in the multimodal age: ideas for language teachers. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 18(1), 98– 115. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n1.8403 Amon, E., Muyskens, J.A., & Omaggio Hadley, A.C. (2019). Vis-à-vis: Beginning French. (7th ed.). 54 Second Language Research & Practice McGraw Hill. Anderson, B., & Dolidon, A. (2020). En avant! Beginning French. (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay. Blyth, C. (2014a). Exploring the affordances of digital social reading for L2 literacy: The case of eComma. In J.P. Guikema & L. Williams (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education. (pp. 201–226). Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO). Blyth, C. (2014b). Open educational resources and the new classroom ecology. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 662–664. Blyth, C., & Thoms, J. (2021). Open education and second language learning and teaching: The rise of a new knowledge ecology. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800411005 Burns Al Masaeed, K. E. (2018). Marginalization of local varieties in the L2 classroom: The case of U.S. Spanish. L2 Journal, 10(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.5070/L210135863 Byrnes, H. (2006). A semiotic perspective on culture and foreign language teaching: Implications for collegiate materials development. In V. Galloway & B. Cothran (Eds.), Language and culture out of bounds: Discipline-blurred perspectives on the foreign language classroom (pp. 37–66). Heinle. Byrnes, H. (2008). Articulating a foreign language sequence through content: A look at the culture standards. Language Teaching, 41(1), 103–118. http://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444807004764 Cárcamo Morales, B. (2020). Readability and types of questions in Chilean EFL high school textbooks. TESOL Journal, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.498 Canale, G. (2016). (Re)Searching culture in foreign language textbooks, or the politics of hide and seek. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(2), 225–243. http://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2016.1144764 Chapelle, C. A. (2016). Teaching culture in introductory foreign language textbooks. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49599-0 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design (pp. 1–36). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137539724_1 Creative Commons (n.d.). About the licenses. Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement), 19–47. http://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301 Dupuy, B., & Michelson, K. (2021). Shifting Paradigms: Reshaping discourse and practice for a more situated approach to second language education. In B. Dupuy & K. Michelson (Eds.), Pathways to paradigm change: Critical examinations of prevailing discourses and ideologies in second language education (pp. 1–8). Cengage. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69789 Etienne, C., & Sax, K. (2009). Stylistic variation in French: Bridging the gap between research and textbooks. Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 584–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2009.00931.x Fang, Z., Sun, Y., Chiu, C. C., & Trutschel, B. K. (2014). Inservice teachers’ perception of a language- based approach to content area reading. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37(1), 55– Michelson & Anderson 55 66. Freahat, N. M., & Smadi, O. M. (2014). Lower-order and higher-order reading questions in secondary and university level EFL textbooks in Jordan. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1804– 1813. http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.9.1804-1813 Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.44.8.3 Graves, K. (2019). Recent books on language materials development and analysis. ELT Journal, 73(3), 337–354. http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz026 Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 779–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12027.x Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold. Huang, S. (2011). “Critical literacy helps wipe away the dirt on our glasses”: Towards an understanding of reading as ideological practice. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(1), 140–164. Huang, S. (2019). A critical multimodal framework for reading and analyzing pedagogical materials. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 18(1), 52–69. http://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-08-2018-0078 Jansma, K., Kassen, M.A., & Denié-Higney, L. (2019). Atelier. Cengage. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford University Press. Kern, R., & Schultz, J. M. (2005). Beyond orality: Investigating literacy and the literary in second and foreign language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00312.x Kiss, T., & Weninger, C. (2013). A semiotic exploration of cultural potential in EFL textbooks. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 9(1), 19–28. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 121– 218. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to communication. Routledge. Lange, K. (2018). Textbook literacies - Investigating the potential of commercial textbooks for literacies- oriented instruction and the professional development of graduate students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Arizona. Lefilliâtre, J. (2017, January 25). Temps de cerveau disponible: Les Français regardent toujours la télé près de quatre heures par jour. Libération. https://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2017/01/25/les- francais-regardent-toujours-la-tele-pres-de-quatre-heures-par-jour_1543932/ Manley, J.H., Smith, S., McMinn-Reyna, J.T., & Prévost, M.A. (2019). Horizons. (7th ed.). Cengage. Menke, M. R., & Paesani, K. (2019). Analysing foreign language instructional materials through the lens of the multiliteracies framework. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1461898 MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1632/prof.2007.2007.1.234 QSR International (2018). NVivo qualitative data analysis software, Version 12, https://www.qsrinternational.com 56 Second Language Research & Practice Paesani, K. (2018). Researching literacies and textual thinking in collegiate foreign language programs: Reflections and recommendations. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 129–139. http://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12312 Paesani, K., & Allen, H. W. (2020). Teacher development and multiliteracies pedagogy: Challenges and opportunities for postsecondary language programs. Second Language Research & Practice, 1(1), 124–138. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69844 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en- us/nam/qualitative-research-evaluation-methods/book232962 Rowland, L., Canning, N., Faulhaber, D., Lingle, W., & Redgrave, A. (2014). A multiliteracies approach to materials analysis. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.927883 Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Scullen, M.E., Pons, C., & Valdman, A. (2020). Chez nous: Branché sur le monde francophone. (5th ed.). Pearson. Simonsen. R. (2019). An analysis of the problematic discourse surrounding “authentic texts.” Hispania, 102(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2019.0045 Stoller, F. L., Anderson, N., Grabe, W., & Komiyama, R. (2013). Instructional enhancements to improve students’ reading abilities. English Teaching Forum, 2–11. Swaffar, J. (1992). Written texts and cultural readings. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 238–250). Heath and Company. Swaffar, J., & Arens, K. (2005). Remapping the foreign language curriculum: An approach through multiple literacies. Modern Language Association of America. Terrell, T.D., Rogers, M.B., Kerr, B.J., & Spielmann, G. (2021). Deux mondes: A communicative approach (8th ed.). McGraw Hill. Tufts, H. & Jarausch, H. (2014). Sur le vif: niveau intermédiaire (6th ed.). Cengage. Urlaub, P. (2013). Critical literacy and intercultural awareness through the reading comprehension strategy of questioning in business language education. Global Business Languages, 18, 67–80. Urlaub, P., & Uelzmann, J. (2013). From orality to literacy: A curricular model for intensive second-year collegiate language instruction. In P. B. Swanson & K. Hoyt (Eds.), Dimension 2013 World Language Learning: Setting the Global Standard. (pp. 23–33). Southern Conference on Language Teaching. Vajta, K. (2019). When the intercultural goes national: Textbooks as sites of struggle. In M. Andrén, T. Lindkvist, I. Söhrman, & K. Vajta (Eds.), Cultural borders of Europe (pp. 71–84). Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw04dv9.8 Weninger, C., & Kiss, T. (2015). Analyzing culture in foreign/second language textbooks. In X. Curdt- Christiansen & C. Weninger (Eds.), Language, ideology and education: The politics of textbooks in language education (pp. 50–66). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814223-11 Wong, W., Weber-Fève, S., Lair, A., & VanPatten, B. (2020). Liasons: An introduction to French (3rd ed.). Cengage. Wong, W., Weber-Fève, S., Lair, A., & VanPatten, B. (2020). Encore niveau intermédiaire (2nd ed.). Cengage. 57 Second Language Research & Practice Appendix A. Textbooks Used Title Publisher Level Atelier Cengage Beginning Chez nous Pearson Beginning Deux mondes McGraw Hill Beginning En avant McGraw Hill Beginning Horizons Cengage Beginning Liasons Cengage Beginning Vis-à-vis McGraw Hill Beginning Encore Cengage Intermediate Sur le vif Cengage Intermediate Appendix B. Sample Lesson Expansion Based on Comparisons of Original and Adapted Texts Task phase Teacher instructions Mode of Lexicogrammar Knowledge and learner tasks communication Process 1. Analyzing Look at the two texts. Oral interpersonal There is/there are (no) Experiencing the base units What is different? … vocabulary for known and the (Álvarez semiotic modes, such new Model response: “In Valencia, as logo, icon, text 1, there is/are Conceptualizing 2016) hyperlink, bold font, _______”; in text 2, by naming italics, navigation bar, there is/are no etc. _______” Possible responses: logo, ads, navigation bar, social media icons, photo caption 2. Analyzing Look at the two texts. Oral Adjectives, Conceptualizing contexts of Text 1 on the left is the interpersonal/ vocabulary to by naming production original text; Text 2 on interpretive describe textual (Álvarez the right is the genres, vocabulary Valencia, adaptation. for website features 58 Second Language Research & Practice 2016) Where did the original Analyzing text appear? What kind critically of website is this? What do you see? How do you know? What kind of a text is this? (Informative? Sensationalist? Factual? Opinion?) 3. Describing What colors do you Oral Vocabulary for Experiencing the and critically see? What shapes do interpersonal/inte colors, shapes; new analyzing the you see? What words rpretive vocabulary for web logo do you see? genres; simple clauses connected Conceptualizing Is the font playful, with “because” to by naming serious? show cause/effect or What kind of a website interpretation/justifica is this? tion This is a _____ because there is/are ______ 4. Analyzing Describe the photo in Oral Question words and Experiencing the photos for text 1. What do you interpersonal/ structures using the new content see? interpretive verb “to be”; verbs to describe actions; Are the people vocabulary for Conceptualizing interacting with each members of a family; with theory other? prepositions of What are the people location doing? Where are they sitting? Who are they? Where is the television? Is everyone watching TV? Not everyone is watching. Why is the TV on? 5. Analyzing Describe the family in Oral Adjectives to describe Conceptualizing photos text 1 in three interpersonal/ physical traits and with theory Michelson & Anderson 59 critically adjectives, and in text interpretive family compositions 2. Analyzing What view of family critically does text 1 promote? How do you think the author/creator of text 1 sees family? What kind of family is featured? What kinds of families are not featured? What message is the author promoting through the choice of this photo to accompany this text? 6. Reading Existing textbook Interpretive Experiencing the written instructional sequence new language of could be used here the article 7. Critically Why might the author Oral interpersonal Verbs in the infinitive Analyzing analyzing the think this is an to describe various critically article’s important topic to intentions; students social discuss? are offered gambits purpose and fill in an Analyzing What do you think is infinitive verb phrase, functionally the overall message or select from a list of that the author is choices, e.g. trying to convey? What leads you to The author wants to think this? _______ 8. Critically What else do you see Oral Vocabulary for Experiencing the describing on this website in interpersonal/ website features new and analyzing addition to the article interpretive (click bait, the web (e.g., ads)? hyperlinks, etc.) context Analyzing Is this website/journal critically reliable? How do you know? Possible responses: Clickbait articles and/or ads; navigation bar and drop-down 60 Second Language Research & Practice categories, hyperlinks (for Médiamétrie, to chase a cultural reference, or for the author, to learn more about the kinds of articles they write, etc.) 9. Expanding Find two other articles Oral Using the Experiencing the through and note their titles. interpersonal/inte comparative with new discovery rpretive adjectives; adjectives What kinds of topics for evaluating online are featured in this articles online newspaper? Conceptualizing Compare this article to by naming other articles that you have found using adjectives such as: serious, reliable, universal, interesting, entertaining, informative, persuasive 10. Critically Do you think the NA NA Analyzing evaluating omitted information critically the was important and adaptation should have been left in; why or why not? (conducted in L1) What does that section add to the overall message/purpose of the article? What does it add to your understanding of the topic? 11. Applying Find stats about screen Written and oral Various Applying time from one other presentational creatively and Francophone country. appropriately Prepare a chart or graph that depicts these stats, to conclude details about age range, screen time, types of media Michelson & Anderson 61 watched/consumed. Prepare a one-minute oral presentation in which you explain the stats. Evaluate the findings: What underlying practices/perspectives might be behind these different stats? About the Authors Kristen Michelson is Assistant Professor of French and Applied Linguistics at Texas Tech University. Her work aims to raise awareness of how particular representational choices are made with agency and intention against a backdrop of broader social contexts and to provide opportunities for second and foreign language learners to understand and participate flexibly in multiple cultural discourses. E-mail: kristen.michelson@ttu.edu Ashley Anderson holds an MA in French from Texas Tech University. Her work focuses on promoting interdisciplinary and real-world skills in language courses, especially in the context of L2 reading. She has taught collegiate French as a graduate part-time instructor, and currently teaches high school French. E-mail: ashley.jenn.anderson@gmail.com