Graded readers as a tool for teaching EFL: A comparative analysis on Frankenstein

DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOGÍA INGLESA Máster en Profesor de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria, Bachillerato, Formación Profesional y Enseñanza de Idiomas TRABAJO FIN DE MÁSTER GRADED READERS AS A TOOL FOR TEACHING EFL: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON FRANKENSTEIN Autor: D. Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Tutora: Dña. Sara Medina Calzada Valladolid, 2019 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid El presente trabajo está sujeto a una licencia de uso de Creative Commons de Reconocimiento de la obra - No comercialización - Sin obra derivada. Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid ABSTRACT Graded readers are an effective tool in EFL learning, and their use is widespread nowadays. The present dissertation aims at analysing two adaptations of Mary Shelley’s 1831 version of Frankenstein, in order to determine whether a higher or lower degree of simplification would be more exploitable for both teachers and students. In order to do this, we have established an analysis method, which can be taken as a reference method for teachers when analysing this type of materials. Results intend to show which reader is better for an EFL student. Finally, we have created a didactic proposal to put into practice with the best reader. Keywords: graded reader, EFL, reading, Frankenstein, simplification, method. RESUMEN Las lecturas graduadas son una herramienta efectiva en la enseñanza del inglés como una lengua extranjera, cuyo uso hoy día está muy extendido. El presente Trabajo de Fin de Máster pretende analizar dos adaptaciones de la versión de 1831 de Mary Shelley de Frankenstein, con el propósito de determinar si el hecho de que una obra esté más o menos simplificada hace que tanto profesores y alumnos puedan sacarle un mayor partido. Para esto, hemos establecido un método de análisis, que puede servir como un método de referencia para profesores a la hora de analizar este tipo de materiales. Los resultados buscan establecer cuál de las dos lecturas graduadas es mejor para un estudiante de inglés como lengua extranjera. Finalmente, hemos creado una propuesta didáctica para aplicarla con dicha lectura. Palabras clave: lectura graduada, inglés como lengua extranjera, lectura, Frankenstein, simplificación, método. Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 2. GRADED READERS IN EFL TEACHING ........................................................................ 5 a. Literature in EFL Teaching ............................................................................................... 5 b. Graded readers................................................................................................................... 6 c. Simplified texts vs. authentic texts .................................................................................... 7 d. Extensive Reading Programmes in Spain ....................................................................... 10 3. METHOD ............................................................................................................................ 13 4. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 17 a. Burlington Books ............................................................................................................ 17 1) Level I ......................................................................................................................... 17 2) Level II ........................................................................................................................ 20 3) Level III ....................................................................................................................... 23 b. Eli Readers ...................................................................................................................... 24 1) Level I ......................................................................................................................... 25 2) Level II ........................................................................................................................ 28 3) Level III ....................................................................................................................... 31 5. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 33 a. Level I ............................................................................................................................. 33 b. Level II ............................................................................................................................ 35 c. Level III ........................................................................................................................... 36 d. Final remarks ................................................................................................................... 37 6. DIDACTIC PROPOSAL .................................................................................................... 39 a. Pre-reading activities ....................................................................................................... 39 b. While-reading activities .................................................................................................. 41 c. Post-reading activities ..................................................................................................... 41 7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 45 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 47 9. ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................... 49 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 1 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 1. INTRODUCTION Graded readers are a very common resource in EFL classes nowadays, given that they allow learners to approach longer texts, which they would not have the level or the time to read. At the same time, it is a useful way to encourage the students’ interest in reading. Moreover, teachers can exploit these resources in order for students to acquire the different skills, at the same time they learn about the literature and culture of the target countries. Nevertheless, there are mixed opinions about the use of these graded readers, since there are scholars who think using them is not beneficial for learners. On the other hand, we have many advocates of the use of these tools in the EFL classroom. However, this thesis is not going to tackle this debate, given that it has been going on for more than three decades. Assuming that graded readers are a useful tool in the teaching of second and foreign languages, we are going to conduct a quantitative and qualitative analysis on two adapted versions of one same novel, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The purpose of this study is to establish what could be more useful in the teaching of English as Foreign Language: a reader that has undergone a very strong process of simplification, or one that is more faithful to the original, and thus is less simplified. Even though this topic has been widely studied from a theoretical point of view, it is hard to find studies tackling the issue from a more practical perspective, especially applied to Secondary Education – many of the studies carried out deal with learners in general, not in high-schools, where the environment is conditioned to the students’ diversity and needs. It is for this reason that we have decided to focus this thesis on this aspect, apart from the obvious connection to the MA and many of the subjects in it, e.g. Lengua Inglesa I and Lengua Inglesa II, Diseño Curricular, and Didáctica de la Especialidad, among others. The materials we are going to work with are two graded readers, adapted from the 1831 version of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. These two readers belong to two different publishers: the first reader was adapted by Kate O’Brien for Burlington Books, and it was first published in 2013; on the other hand, the second one was adapted by Elizabeth Ferreti for Eli Readers, and the first edition was published in 2009. The reasoning behind the choice of a graded readers adapted from Frankenstein is the following: many of the graded readers in EFL classes are adaptations of classic works of literature, ranging from Shakespeare’s plays to Isaac Asimov’s short stories. In 2 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid many cases, these works are chosen because they are more appealing to students. This, however, is a risk, given that not all students have the same likings, and it is virtually impossible that all of the students fully enjoy one same reader. However, here is where the teacher’s job comes into play – teachers are supposed to show the students the interesting, useful or curious aspects they can find, in order to increase their interest in these readings, and thus foster their acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Even though the original version of Frankenstein was written in 1818, this novel has had a great cultural impact because of various reasons: first of all, there have been films and adaptations made from it; next, Frankenstein’s monster has turned into a Halloween character, and thus is very present in our culture; and finally, it deals with one of the most important and exploited topics in the history of literature, which is the fact of humans having an immense amount of power, and the consequences that this may bring around. Also, it is probably a suitable choice for Second Year of Bachillerato students because it is a demanding reading, but if students work on it, it is accomplishable. Moreover, we believe the adaptations on this work will have numerous elements to study and analyse, from the point of view of linguistics, grammar and EFL learning. In connection with the previous point, it is also necessary to clarify the overall purpose of this thesis: when teachers in Secondary Education have to pick a reader, they might be somewhat lost when having to select one edition or another, not knowing which might be more recommendable. This thesis, which will include an exhaustive quantitative analysis, may be useful for other teachers given that it is thought of as a reference work, along with a method which can be used when analysing any reader. It is true that nobody will go into much detail when having to select a reading, but this project can be used as a reference point, with a clear evaluation on two different editions, in terms of simplification. Considering all this, the objectives of this study are the following: 1) To conduct a deep analysis on the different aspects that conform these readers, the differences they present with regards to one another, and the original work by Mary Shelley. 2) To establish whether a higher or lower degree of simplification is more recommended, based on the results that we obtain from the analysis of the readers. 3 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 3) To create a series of activities designed specifically for the reader that would best suit an EFL classroom, tackling all the different skills, while maintaining the students’ motivation and interest. The organisation of this project is the following: first of all, we will conduct a literature review on graded readers and their use in EFL teaching to set the grounds this study is going to be built on. Next, in the “Method” section, we will explain the procedures followed in order to carry out the analysis. Then, we will move on to the analysis of the two graded readers per se. After this analysis has been conducted, we will compare the results of both in the “Discussion” section. Once we have selected a preferred reader, we will propose a series of activities that can be applied to an EFL classroom in the “Proposal” section. Finally, we will summarise the main points and conclusions reached with this study. 10 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid arguing that graded readers undergo a loss of information which is detrimental for young learners. d. Extensive Reading Programmes in Spain Given that this dissertation is being written in the context of the teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Spain, we are going to make a brief analysis on extensive reading programmes, and how these are portrayed in the Spanish curriculum. If we go to the curriculum for Secondary Education, we can see that including literature in the curriculum is considered to be a useful tool, and teachers are recommended to use it in their lessons. The Introduction section in the curriculum includes, amongst others, the following statement: “… the use of songs, movies, stories and tales pertaining to the cultural identity of that language will be very useful” (Real Decreto 1105/2014, 2014, p. 32233; my translation). The same happens if we look at the curriculum for Bachillerato of Castile and Leon; we find that, in the “Contents” section, we have elements such as “Sociocultural and sociolinguistic aspects belonging to the community where the target language is spoken”, “Traditions, values, beliefs and attitudes”, “General and specific lexicon”, among others (ORDEN EDU/363/2015, 2015, pp. 269-278; my translation). Moreover, in the section for Second Year of Bachillerato, which is the level on which this study is focused, we can find the following evaluation criteria: Conocer y saber aplicar las estrategias adecuadas para comprender el sentido general; la información esencial; los puntos principales; los detalles relevantes; información, ideas y opiniones tanto implícitas como explícitas del texto si están claramente señalizadas; y matices como la ironía o el humor, o el uso poético o estético de la lengua, formulados de manera clara. (ORDEN EDU/362/2015, 2015, p. 274) All these elements can be found in graded readers, given that they provide a different set of contexts in which all of these elements can be found. At the same time, we can also find the following learning standard: 7. Comprende los aspectos principales, detalles relevantes, algunas ideas implícitas y el uso poético de la lengua en textos literarios que presenten una estructura accesible y un lenguaje no muy idiomático, y en los que el desarrollo del tema o de la historia, los personajes centrales y sus relaciones, o el motivo poético, estén claramente 11 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid señalizados con marcadores lingüísticos fácilmente reconocibles (ORDEN EDU/362/2015, 2015, p. 275) From this, we understand that incorporating literature in EFL classrooms is regarded as a tool for teachers to exploit – literature contains many of these elements, apart from grammar and vocabulary aspects, amongst others. The curriculum incorporates the idea that literature, amongst other materials that will foster the learning of the target culture, is to be used in the EFL classroom. The problem we find, nevertheless, is that this is all theoretical, i.e. there are no practical guidelines explaining how this process should be carried out. This is where the teachers’ training comes into practice, since they have to find the best way to incorporate these elements into their classes so that students can take advantage of them in their acquisition of the language. The way literature is incorporated into the EFL classrooms in Spain is through the use of graded readers. There is an issue with this, however, since these graded readers are usually picked the year before by teachers who might not even be in charge of that class. This poses the following question: if a teacher selects one single graded reader, without knowing who his / her students are going to be, and thus not being able to anticipate aspects such as their level and skills, their likes and dislikes and interests, as well as the group dynamics, is just one reader enough? 12 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 13 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 3. METHOD This dissertation will analyse two concrete graded readers in relation to the original text, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, and it will establish a comparison between both. First, I read the original text by Mary Shelley, taking down notes related to content, and also annotating important aspects that should be regarded when analysing the graded readers. At the same time, I looked for two adaptations of Frankenstein, making sure that these were created for the same level. I also made sure the publishing houses were different, to see if there are any similarities or differences amongst both. The two adaptations I chose were for the highest level in high-school (second year of Bachillerato), and thus they should correspond to a B2 level, according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The two publishing houses are Burlington Books, a publisher high-schools frequently work with, and Eli Readers, which is not as common. The latter edition had more pages than the one by Burlington Books, which is another element to consider, and which will be analysed further on. The reason why these two readers were picked was the difference in length, first, given that the Burlington Books version is 67 pages long, whereas the Eli Readers one is 144 pages long. Moreover, both readers belonged to the fourth stage. After selecting the adaptations to work with, I read both of them, always having the original novel as a reference. I marked all those elements that I found worthy of analysing, and I then classified these into three different levels, which I created specifically for this MA Dissertation. The first level (Level I) includes all those elements related to sentence length, grammar structures, lexicon, register, format, and headwords. The second one (Level II), deals with the changes and adaptations in content. Finally, the third level (Level III) includes items provided by the publishers apart from the adaptations themselves, such as the activities, the definitions and all other useful elements for teachers to include in their lessons. The idea is that the first level deals with the most apparent features of the text, such as lexicon, for example. In order to analyse the second one, it is necessary to read carefully the simplified texts, comparing them to the original novel, keeping in mind that in this particular case, the novel analysed was written at the beginning of the 19th century, and it has been adapted for young learners to read; and, to finally extract the elements 14 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid belonging to the third level, it is key to have studied the two previous levels, as well as to have a background on the teaching of English as a Foreign Language. Once all the information was gathered, all these items were organised in tables, and graphs were created in order to see more clearly the different aspects. Next, both adaptations were compared. It is from this comparison that a conclusion will be extracted, justifying why one of the adaptations is more recommended for its use in EFL contexts (if there is one). Needless to say, this study is not dealing with whether or not there should be simplified texts or not. Given that the actual system of education has these graded readers included in the classroom, I have assumed as a starting point that these are actually beneficial for students learning English as a second language, and to then conduct my research. Also, this study will explore the different ways to use these readers in EFL lessons. Next, we are going to analyse each level in more depth, explaining what was studied, the different criteria that was followed, and the purpose of the elements analysed. First of all, in Level I, we are going to analyse the different grammatical structures employed, using a chart created from the appropriate year the readers are directed for, and we will mark down if these include a relevant number of instances of every structure Figure 1: Structure of the Analysis 15 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid that students are supposed to learn. In order to carry out this analysis, we will use the two first chapters in both readers, including the Prologue as well. Next, we will move on to the different verbal tenses employed. The same process will apply here: a chart will be created, marking down if there are sufficient instances of the verbal tenses included in the curriculum, and then a series of graphs will be presented, showing the distribution of tenses, and indicating as well if there is a prevalence of simple or complex tenses. After this, there will be a general commentary on the headwords included, and the sentence length and complexity. Once this is analysed, we will move on to Level II, where we will study the two readers, comparing them to the 1831 version of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, 1 and commenting on the different content adaptations that have been carried out, and the fidelity to the original, which is also an important matter. Finally, we will move on to Level III. Here, we will take into account the readers, but with a focus on the teaching and learning process. The exercises provided in the reader will be studied, focusing on its applicability and usefulness. The definitions provided at the bottom of the pages will also be compared between both readers, as well as any other additional materials. 1 Mary Shelley first published Frankenstein in 1818, but she revised her novel for the third edition of 1831. Most modern editions are based on the 1831 version. 16 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 17 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 4. ANALYSIS This section will include a separate analysis on the different items we explained in the Method section, focusing on each reader at a time, so as to establish a comparison in the Discussion section. We will also follow the order established previously, analysing the verbal tenses, lexicon, and other superficial aspects included in what we call “Level I”; next we will move on to the analysis of the content (Level II), and finally we will assess the resources the teacher has at hand, as well as the different activities that are provided for students to work on the readings, in Level III. a. Burlington Books The first reader we are going to analyse is the Burlington adaptation of Frankenstein. This book was adapted by Kate O’Brien, and it was first published in 2009. This book has 61 pages in total, and it has colourful images that illustrate whatever is being described. It is classified as a “Burlington Activity Reader”, which, as we can read on the back of the reader, is “part of a series of carefully graded readers especially designed for Spain” (O’Brien, 2013). 1) Level I Moving into Level I, we are going to analyse the grammatical structures employed, checking whether or not most of the structures considered in the curriculum for Second year of Bachillerato are used, and with what frequency. As we explained above, we are going to use a chart created with the program “Excel”, looking at the different items listed in the curriculum for Second year of Bachillerato. The result of this analysis can be seen in Table 1, below. Items that are listed as “Irrelevant” have appeared less than five times, whereas those items that are labelled as “Relevant” have appeared five or more times, so we have considered that they can be exploited for the students’ learning of these structures. As we can see by the results, many of the items listed by the curriculum are either not used in this reader, or they are not included a sufficient number of times. This is probably due to the simplification process undergone, in which many of the complex structures have been simplified, instead including simpler sentences. The question that arises here is the following: if we compare these results to the ones in the Eli Readers version, which is longer, will they be any different? Moreover, if we analyse the items 18 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid that do appear, we can see that most of these are structures which are quite common, and thus they are frequently used. If we move on to the analysis of the verbal tenses, we have used the two first chapters as a sample, as well as the Prologue. The analysis of these has been compiled into the following table, from which we have created a visual graph to illustrate the results we have obtained. As we can see below, the tense that has been used the most is the past simple tense due to the fact that the story is told by Frankenstein himself. This was expected when carrying out the analysis, given that this also happens in the original version. The next tense that appears frequently has a much lower number of instances: from 233 instances in the case of the past simple, to 48 in the case of the verbs in their infinitive form. Finally, the third most-frequent verbal tense that appears in this reader is the gerund. This is surprising, given that this is a tense that would normally be expected to appear less frequently than “easier” ones, e.g. the present simple tense. Grammatical structure Number of instances Conjunctions (neither…nor) No instances Disjunctions (either… or) No instances Opposition / Concession (only, despite/ in spite of) Irrelevant Cause (because (of), due to, as, since) No instances Purpose (so as to) No instances Comparison (as / not so … as, far less … than) No instances Result / Correlation (such that) No instances Condition (if, unless, in case, supposing) No instances Reported style Relevant Temporal relationship ((just) as; while; once) Relevant Affirmations (emphatic affirmative sentences, tags) Irrelevant Exclamations (what + noun + sentence, how + adv + adj.) Irrelevant Negations (never ever, you needn’t have) No instances Interrogations (whquestions, aux. questions, tags) Irrelevant Expressing existence, entity or quality Relevant Expressing quantities (number, quantity or degree) Relevant Expressing space Relevant Expressing time Relevant Expressing manner Irrelevant Table 1: Burlington: grammatical structures 19 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid If we focus now on Figure 3, we can see a graph showing the aspects of these verbs. We can see how the vast majority of the verbs are simple – we expected a higher number of these verbs. However, only 10 verbs are progressive, and only 12 are perfect, Figure 3: Burlington: verb aspects Figure 2: Burlington: verbal tenses 26 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid gerund, infinitive, past perfect, past continuous or present simple. This can give way to the teacher to ask students to focus more on these tenses in particular. Other tenses, such as the conditional, do not appear so frequently. This is expected, given that the conditional tense is less used than other ones. Finally, we are also going to analyse the aspect of these verbs, just as we did with the Burlington version. Figure 5 below shows that, just as in the previous reader, most of Figure 5: Eli Readers: verb aspect Figure 4: Eli Readers: verb tenses 27 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid the verbs are simple, and there are very few progressive and perfect verbs. With regards to this aspect, the reader would lack some variety, as we will analyse in the Discussion section. The next element to be analysed are the headwords, as well as the sentence length and complexity. With regards to the headwords, this graded reader is classified under the label “Stage 4”, which corresponds to the B2 Level established by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, and is thus classified as having 1800 headwords. The sentences in this reader are simpler than the original, as was expected. However, they do have a certain degree of complexity. If we use the passage we saw in the Burlington edition, we can see how the sentences are longer and more complex: My mother liked to help poor families and would visit them when we travelled, to give them money. It was on one of these visits that she found a child who had the most beautiful blond hair. Indeed, her hair was of the brightest gold. She looked so adorable and sweet (Ferreti, 2009, p. 15). As we can see, the simplification process in this reader is less noticeable when regarding sentence structure. Nevertheless, there has been a significant simplification with regards to the content, given that this edition omits the fact that Elizabeth was one of five siblings. This will be studied later on, in the next level. In order to see how the simplification process has maintained some of the elements in the original work, we have also included the first paragraph of the letter Frankenstein receives, announcing that his brother William has been murdered: “My dear Victor, Your brother William is dead! William has been murdered! I must tell you how it happened. Elizabeth and your two brothers were walking one evening when they decided to play a game of hide and seek. William ran off to hide, but did not return. We spent the night looking for him. At about five in the morning I discovered the lifeless body of my lovely boy. He had been strangled. (…)” (Ferreti, 2009 p. 32) In this letter, we can clearly see that there is a reminiscence of the style employed by Shelley in her original work. The sentence “William ran off to hide, but did not return” (Ferreti, 2009, p. 32) includes a phrasal verb, and both sentences are linked with the 28 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid conjunction “but”. In the second sentence, in fact, the subject is omitted, given that it is “William”. This particular paragraph in the original version is longer and has more description in it, apart from there being some changes in the content. Nevertheless, the style in this reader, as we said above, is not as simple as expected. 2) Level II Moving on to Level II, we are going to analyse the major differences in content. First of all, as we did with the Burlington reader, we are going to see a comparative table where we see how the chapters have been organised in the reader. If we analyse Table 5, which shows the correlation between the chapters in the original version of Frankenstein and the ones in the Eli Readers edition, we can see that there is an uneven grouping of the chapters, i.e., some of the chapters in the graded reader include three different chapters (e.g. Chapter 2), whereas others only include just one (e.g. Chapter 6). It is true that there are chapters that might be longer, which may have prompted the editor to group the chapters in this way. Moreover, the reason these chapters have been grouped in this way is probably a content-related one: the graded readers is organised according to the events that take place, as we will see next. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1831) Eli Readers adaptation Letters I – IV, Chapters 1 – 3 Chapter 1 Chapters 4 – 6 Chapter 2 Chapters 7 – 10 Chapter 3 Chapters 10 – 16 Chapter 4 Chapters 16 – 20 Chapter 5 Chapters 21 Chapter 6 Chapters 22 – 23 Chapter 7 Chapters 23 – 24 Chapter 8 Walton, in Continuation Chapter 9 Table 5: Eli Readers: correlation between chapters In this graded reader, we can find the same characteristic as in the one by Burlington: each chapter has a sort of subtitle, describing the main event that takes place in that chapter. This is probably done as an aid for students who might not be familiar with the story. We can see in Table 6 the titles each chapter has been assigned by the editor. 29 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid Chapter Title 1 A Mysterious Visitor 2 Where Does Life Come From? 3 The Most Unhappy of All Men 4 I Was Cold, Alone and Afraid 5 Hatred Filled My Heart 6 The Storm at Sea 7 The Wedding 8 Journey to the North 9 Journey’s End Table 6: Eli Readers: subtitles in each chapter As we can see in the table above, the titles either add some intrigue to the chapter, or they describe the main events that take place. Learners might feel the need to discover what these refer to, and thus read each chapter with more interest. This would be related to one of Lazar´s approaches (1993), where she understands literature as a means for personal enrichment. Analysing the way in which the graded reader might incorporate adaptations from the original version, we can first see that the first couple of pages in the reader are some drawings of the main characters. This has probably been included in order for students to start getting acquainted with the different characters. Next, we can see how, in Chapter 1, the letter format Shelley uses in order to introduce the setting is maintained in the adaptation. The letters Walton writes, which are addressed to his sister, are summarised, but are faithful to the original version. Once the letters end, we get a change in the narrative frame, which switches onto Frankenstein’s story. In the graded reader, it includes a short title: “Victor’s Story”. Here, we can find a difference between the original work and the adaptation, which we commented upon in the previous section: when Frankenstein’s parents decide to adopt Elizabeth Lavenza, in the original work she is described as one of five siblings, who stands out because she is adopted. In the Eli Readers version, Elizabeth is presented as an adopted child who has no siblings. It is also worth commenting the fact that, as with the Burlington edition, this version of the reader is based on the 1831 version of Frankenstein, since Elizabeth is adopted, and not Frankenstein’s cousin. At the end of the second chapter in the reader, Elizabeth sends Frankenstein a letter, explaining to him how everyone in the family is doing – he has been studying at 30 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid Ingolstadt for over two years. The letter, which in the original version is quite complete, is summarised here, by using the reported speech structure. In Chapter 3, Justine’s trial is narrated. In the original version of Frankenstein, after she has been wrongfully charged for the murder of Victor’s younger brother, William, Frankenstein and Elizabeth visit her in her cell, given that she used to work for the family, and they believe she is innocent (in fact, Frankenstein is quite sure it was his monster that murdered William). This visit is omitted in the Eli Readers version, probably due to the fact that it is quite long, and it does not really affect the course of the story much. In Chapter 4, in which Frankenstein’s encounter with the monster is narrated, we can see another clear change in the narrative frame – the monster tells his story to Frankenstein from the moment he was created. In here, we can also find an interesting change: Safie’s story, which is quite detailed in the original version, is omitted in this one as well. There could be two reasons for this change: first of all, just as it happened with the Burlington edition, it could just have been a matter of space and relevance, given that it is not even a secondary story, but a tertiary one (it is a story inside the monster’s story, which is at the same time inside Frankenstein’s story). However, Safie’s story includes topics which may be controversial, such as slavery and the treatment to women in some specific countries. This could have been a strategy to avoid students from focusing on this topic, or to even get the wrong idea about them. Continuing with Chapter 4, we can see that, when the monster narrates his encounter with William, the adaptation is almost as violent as the original work, and there has been no change here either. Nevertheless, it is necessary to keep in mind the fact that the adaptations we are analysing are written for Second Year of Bachillerato students, who are almost adults. If the adaptation were written for younger students, there might have been less violence. The next remarkable aspect in the adaptation occurs in Chapter 6, where Victor narrates his journey to England and Scotland, and the murder of his best friend, Clerval. In the original work, Frankenstein stops telling his story to Walton, because he needs to take a break, as he is very much affected by Clerval’s death, and he needs to rest before he can tell him about this tragedy. In the Eli Readers version, we find that this break is also included. Given that it does not really add essential information, it is interesting from 31 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid a formal point of view: learners could see how the style changes, and they might also be reminded that what they are reading is what Frankenstein is telling Walton, so it is a way to bring the action back to the beginning. Finally, in the ninth chapter, we can see how the graded reader re-incorporates the letter format we found at the beginning, thus keeping the same generic conventions that Shelley used for this last section of her work. 3) Level III The last level we are going to analyse is Level III, where we will study the general format of the book, along with its visual aids. We will also analyse different additional resources presented in the graded reader, including the glossary, the activities, the media provided, any extra-readings that are included at the end, and the last section of the book, called “Syllabus”. First, with regards to the general format of the reader, we can see it includes colourful images that might help the students when reading by helping them imagine what is going on. At the same time, it is necessary to say that these images are quite dark, and they could even be linked to a Romantic aesthetics, given that there are many depictions of nature, cold and foreign locations, as well as dark places. As we mentioned before, the first two pages include drawings of the different characters and their names. With regards to the glossary, there is not a compendium of vocabulary words at the end of the reader as such – instead, there is a small section at the end of every page, where difficult words are defined. It is curious, given that they are not translated into Spanish, but rather they include a definition in English or a synonym. This is useful, as it allows students to learn twice as much: they can learn the meaning of the word included in this section, and they can also learn what other words they can use as synonyms. Moving on to the activities presented in this reader, there are (just as with the Burlington reader) “Before reading” activities, “After reading” activities each chapter, and also some final activities, which we will discuss later on, because they are related to the additional readings provided. It is quite noteworthy to see the way the activities are presented, since every activity is labelled under one skill (e.g. “speaking”, or “writing”). There are around eight 32 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid activities per chapter, which is a high number. Also, not all the activities are the same: there are “classic” matching activities or fill-in the blanks activities, for example, but there are also more “non-conventional” activities, such as a word search, or writing exercises in which the students have to fit some contents presented in the story into text messages, with a word limit. The activities are very well-explained, and they are also quite useful for the teacher to direct the class (especially the “speaking” activities, which give room for discussion). Analysing the last pages of the reader, we can see that there are eight pages including additional readings. The texts included deal with Mary Shelley and her life, but there are also more texts dealing with the origin of her work, the major themes that this work explores, and the way in which Frankenstein has influenced popular culture as well as history. This is very interesting, given that it provides students with some knowledge about the original work, thus expanding their view on literature, and also fostering their interest in reading and classic books. With regards to the media provided, this graded reader includes a CD at the back, with recorded extracts from the reader. This CD is also useful for the listening activities, and students can download the full text in MP3 format if they head over to the official Eli Readers website. Finally, the last section of the book is titled “Syllabus”, and it contains a list of all the grammatical aspects included in the reader, which is also useful when deciding whether to use it or not for a certain purpose: the teacher can see clearly if this book is exploitable in order to teach a particular element. 33 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 5. DISCUSSION In this section, we are going to compare the results of the analysis of both readers so as to establish which one would be the best one to use in an EFL classroom. The comparison is going to follow the same structure we have used in the analysis: both readers are going to be compared according to each level, establishing the strong and weak points of each one of them. a. Level I First, we are going to see the results from the analysis of Level I. In the case of the Burlington edition, we can first see that the reader itself is shorter than the one by Eli Readers. If we focus on the grammatical structures employed successfully, we can see that the Burlington edition uses less grammatical structures included in the curriculum for Second Year of Bachillerato, whereas the Eli Readers one does include many more instances of these structures. Figure 6: Comparison of the tenses 34 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid In the case of the verbs included, due to the length of both books, the Eli Readers edition includes more verbs than the Burlington one. In order to compare them, we are going to include the percentages of each tense in a graph (Figure 6). As we can see, the percentage of verbal tenses is more or less similar; however, we can see how the Eli Readers edition (in yellow) has more different tenses than the Burlington one (in orange). In fact, the former has 11 different tenses, whereas the latter only includes 8. In both readers, the past simple tense is the most used one, and the infinitive is the second most used. The past tense is widely used, as we explained above, because Frankenstein tells his story to Walton, and so he has to use the past tense. The infinitive is widely used as well because there are many sentences which have these verbs as subjects – this, in fact, is a rather complex construction. With regards to the sentence length and complexity, the Burlington edition has been simplified to a degree where the reading is somehow hindered by all the constant stops. Students of Second Year of Bachillerato should have the enough proficiency to read more complex sentences, such as the ones presented in the Eli Readers adaptation. Moreover, and in connection to the grammatical structures, this latter edition includes structures that are useful for the students, even though they may seem to be more complex at first. This is very significant when considering the Input Hypothesis formulated by Krashen (1982). Students will be more likely to acquire these structures, which they have been learning throughout their education. Finally, the letter format in the original work by Shelley has not been kept in the Burlington edition, which somehow is a loss for the learners, since they could study that particular genre and style. In the Eli Readers adaptation, however, we do find this format, both at the beginning and at the end of the book. If we were to pick one of the readers, we can see how, in terms of the variety in the grammatical structures, as well as the verbal tenses and the sentence length and complexity, the most recommendable reader to use would be the Eli Readers edition. Looking at Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, it can be argued that having more variety and more complex sentences would ensure that students acquired that “+1” Krashen describes, which would be what they acquired by using their previous knowledge. The Burlington edition does not include that element that students would 35 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid acquire by putting into practice what they know, given that the text has been overly simplified (Krashen, 1982). b. Level II Tackling now the second level, we are going to make a comparative analysis in which we are going to see if one of the two readers has been more faithful to the original in terms of content. In the case of the Burlington Reader, as we saw above, an evident simplification process can be observed, given that elements such as Safie’s story, as well as the letters written from Walton to his sister, have been omitted. Furthermore, the biggest simplification in content we can see is probably the one that appears in Chapter 4, where Justine’s trial takes place. The adaptation breaks the conventional narrative style to incorporate a series of bullet points with the apparent intention of facilitating the readers’ comprehension of these. However, if we focus on the style used, the result is quite the opposite, given that the reading lacks quality. In the case of the Eli Readers adaptation, we can see that the letter format is maintained, and Justine’s trial is not summarised into a series of bullet points. Nevertheless, Safie’s backstory disappears as well, probably due to its lack of relevance as well as to the possible controversy that this would create amongst students. A point we found both readers have in common is the fact that they include a title under each chapter number, probably to catch students’ attention, or to help them understand the general idea of the chapter they are going to read. This, as we explained above, can be linked to Lazar’s approach, which is using literature as a means of personal enrichment (1993): students will probably be curious about the titles which have been suggested, and thus read with a little bit more interest, thus improving their acquisition of the language structures slightly. The only aspects that create a significant difference between both readers are Walton’s letters, which only appear in the Eli Readers edition, as well as Justine’s trial, which can be found in Chapter 4 in the Burlington edition, and in Chapter 3 in the Eli Readers one. Apart from this, both adaptations have undergone a similar process of content adaptation. 42 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid in which the relevance of this work is explained. Once these texts have been read, the students should then complete the activities on page 142, which cover the whole book. Then, the teacher would conduct another round of questions, asking students about their honest opinion about the book. If students have not enjoyed the reading, the teacher should take notes on why not, always looking for a way to improve the classes and the materials the students are working with. Finally, as a sort of complementary activities, the teacher could ask the students to pick between representing fragments of the book, as if it was a theatre play, which would improve their speaking and listening skills; or he / she could encourage the students to write a story with the same prompt Frankenstein was written: in couples, students should create the scariest story. Then, the students would read each other’s stories anonymously, and there would be a vote, to see which was “the new Frankenstein”. d. Final project The final project we have designed for the students would consist on a written project, as well as an oral presentation, which the students would have to prepare in groups of four or five students. Once they have finished the reading, they would have to look for a movie which includes a theme similar to the ones discussed in the reader: life and death, the limits of science, or injustice, for example. After picking a movie, they would have to explain to the teacher the reason for their choice, and then they would have to write an essay, and create an oral presentation. In the written essay, students will have to compare the movie to the book, focusing on one aspect; whereas in the oral presentation, they will show clips of the movie they have selected, explaining where viewers can see this theme portrayed. For this project, students will also be able to ask the teacher for information, guidance, or references. The students will have time to prepare this project in the fifth session dedicated for this didactic proposal, and they will be able to make their oral presentations (which should not last more than ten minutes) during the last session. The teacher will evaluate both the written project and the oral presentation, and will add this mark to the one created from the evaluation of the rest of the activities. 43 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid This would allow students to study and use materials that they are interested in, thus increasing their interest in the activity. At the same time, being able to see how Frankenstein might have influenced other forms of modern-day culture will give them a wider perspective on the influence of classical literature. Finally, students will develop a sense of critical thinking, by having to compare the graded reader they have been working on with a new expression of culture. Moreover, we are trying to move away from the traditional “reading exam”, as this is a very common practice in high-schools, and it does not foster students’ interest in reading, nor does it prove that students have actually read the book, given that they can find summaries on the Internet. 44 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 45 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 7. CONCLUSIONS After carrying out the analysis, comparing the results, and proposing a series of activities in order to use this reader in an EFL classroom, the first thing we can notice is the surprising scarce amount of scholarly research on graded readers, considering how extended their use is. This can be linked to one of the main purposes of this dissertation, which is to establish a method useful for teachers when considering the materials they are going to use in their EFL classes. Another noticeable aspect is the fact that an exhaustive analysis on two similar readers adapted from a novel can show obvious differences between them, in terms of the more formal aspects (Grammar, sentence length and complexity, or vocabulary), but also in terms of the adaptation of content, as well as the activities that have been included as resources for both the students and the teachers. Secondly, we can see how, from this analysis, we can decide on whether one of the readers is more adequate or advisable to use than the other, especially taking the curriculum for EFL teaching as a reference. Moreover, through our analysis, we saw how a reader which has undergone a lighter simplification process is more exploitable and useful for learners, whereas one which has undergone more changes is probably less recommended due to its simplicity and lack of variety. This decision was linked to Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, given that, if students were given a text that was too simple, they would not be able to acquire anything new, and thus the teaching and learning process would be unfruitful (Krashen, 1982). Finally, we were able to design a set of activities which would use the reader as a base resource, but including topics from the target language culture; at the same time, we ensured that these activities would keep the students’ interest and motivation, which is a very important issue when dealing with teaching in general. As a concluding remark, we can highlight the fact that more research on graded readers is needed, to analyse the simplification process that takes place, as well as to see their effect in EFL learning. Moreover, if we were to pose a possible research topic for further research in this field, we could focus on the criteria that publishing houses use when adapting works, and study whether these criteria are met. If these criteria were to exist, how much would it coincide with what is specified in the curriculum for each level, and how much of it is respected? 46 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 47 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY Claridge, G. (2005). Simplification in Graded Readers: Measuring the Authenticity of Graded Texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2) 144-158. Claridge, G. (2011). What Makes a Good Graded Reader: Engaging with Graded Readers in the Context of Extensive Reading in L2. (PhD dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington. Consejería de Educación de Castilla y León (2015). ORDEN EDU/362/2015, de 4 de mayo, por la que se establece el currículo y se regula la implantación, evaluación y desarrollo de la educación secundaria obligatoria en la Comunidad de Castilla y León. BOCYL nº 86. Junta de Castilla y León: Valladolid. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, U.K: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A Linguistic Analysis of Simplified and Authentic Texts. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 15-30. Davies, A., & Widdowson, H. (1974). Reading and Writing. In J. P. Allen, Techniques in Applied Linguistics (pp. 155-201). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davison, A., & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the Failure of Readability Formulas to Define Readable Texts: A Case Study from Adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 287-209. Edmonson, W. (1997). The Role of Literature in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. AILA Review, 12, (Special issue: Applied Linguistics Across Disciplines, A. Mauranen & K. Sajavaara, eds), 42-55. Fernández Fernández, R. (2006). El uso de los textos literarios en el aula de inglés como lengua, Pulso (29), 33-42. Ferreti, E. (2009). Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Recanati: Eli Readers. Hill, D. (1992). The EPER Guide to Organising Programmes of Extensive Reading. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Hill, D. (2008). Graded Readers in English. ELT Journal, 62 (2), 184–204. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and Language Teaching: A Guide for Teachers and Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (2015). Real Decreto 1105/2014, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y del Bachillerato. BOE nº 3. Jefatura del Estado: Madrid. 48 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid Nation, P., & Wang Ming-tzu, K. (1999). Graded Readers and Vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12 (2), 355-380. O'Brien, K. (2013). Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Limassol, Cyprus: Burlington Books. Paran, A. (2008, October). The Role of Literature in Instructed Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: An Evidence-Based Survey. Language Teaching, 41 (4), 465-496. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Shelley, M. (1831). Frankenstein. London: Colburn & Bentley. Simensen, A. M. (1987). Adapted Readers: How Are They Adapted? Reading in a Foreign Language, 4 (1), 41 – 57. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 49 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid 9. ANNEXES In this section, we are going to include a sample of the tables we have created to analyse the different verb tenses. We have included different aspects, such as the tense itself, the aspect, the voice, the chapter this verb can be found in, as well as the page where it appears. a. Burlington Verb Analysis Table Verbal tenses Tense Aspect Voice Chapter Page Lived Past simple (regular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Had Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 To sail Infinitive Simple Active Prologue 8 To discover Infinitive Simple Active Prologue 8 Travelled Past simple (regular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Bought Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Chose Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Left Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Were sailing Past continuous Progressive Active Prologue 8 Saw Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Pulled Past simple (regular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Was travelling Past continuous Progressive Active Prologue 8 Was sitting Past continuous Progressive Active Prologue 8 Guiding Gerund Simple Active Prologue 8 Watched Past simple (regular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Was Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Saw Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 Floating Gerund Simple Active Prologue 8 Was Past simple (irregular) Simple Active Prologue 8 50 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid b. Eli Readers Verb Analysis Table Verb Tense Aspect Voice Chapter Page Will be Future simple Simple Active 1 10 To learn Infinitive Simple - 1 10 Arrived Past simple (regular) Simple Active 1 10 Do (not) need Present simple Simple Active 1 10 To worry Infinitive Simple - 1 10 Am Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Will be Future simple Simple Active 1 10 Feel Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Increases Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Am going Present continuous Progressive Active 1 10 Does (not) set Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Will discover Future simple Simple Active 1 10 Can Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Carry Infinitive (bare) Simple - 1 10 To find (out) Infinitive Simple - 1 10 Work Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Is Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Feel Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Setting (off) Gerund Simple - 1 10 Will be Future simple Simple Active 1 10 Am Present simple Simple Active 1 10 Is Present simple Simple Active 1 11 Have hired Present perfect (regular) Perfect Active 1 11 Have Present simple Simple Active 1 11 Improves Present simple Simple Active 1 11 Will set (off) Future simple Simple Active 1 11 Is Present simple Simple Active 1 11 Missing Gerund Simple - 1 11 Makes Present simple Simple Active 1 11 Suffer Infinitive (bare) Simple Active 1 11 Do (not) have Present simple Simple Active 1 11 To share Infinitive Simple - 1 11 Am Present simple Simple Active 1 11 Ask Present simple Simple Active 1 11 To remember Infinitive Simple - 1 11 Hear Present simple Simple Active 1 11 Has happened Present perfect (regular) Perfect Active 1 11 51 Juan Ignacio de la Fuente McCauley Universidad de Valladolid