Exploring Female Saudi EFL Teachers’ Instructional Practices in Using Authentic Texts for Teaching Reading Comprehension

  •  Sarah Abdulgani Alzaidi    
  •  Abeer Sultan Althaqafi    


This research study explored EFL teachers’ instructional practices (e.g., adaptation, selection, elaboration, and simplification) in using authentic texts for teaching reading comprehension. In fact, a considerable amount of research has been devoted to investigate the use of authentic texts in teaching reading comprehension. However, there is an academic and professional need to explore how teachers exploit authentic texts while teaching reading comprehension. The study employed a mixed method research design. Teachers’ instructional practices were explored through a self-reported questionnaire. Also, the study examined teachers’ perspectives on these practices and how their Personal Practical Knowledge (PPK) affects their practices by conducting semi-structured interviews. From two Saudi universities, 50 female EFL teachers responded to the questionnaire, while additional five teachers were interviewed. The questionnaire results revealed that EFL teachers adapt authentic texts for advanced students more than beginners. In contrast, most of the teachers in the interviews highlighted that authentic texts are applicable in teaching beginners with the use of technology. The quantitative and qualitative results showed that teachers select authentic texts that match students’ language level, their cultural background, and course book objectives. It was also found that the aspects of PPK knowledge affected teachers’ instructional practices in using authentic texts. Based on the research findings, several suggestions and recommendations were presented to enhance the effectiveness of authentic texts in the EFL classrooms.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • ISSN(Print): 1927-5250
  • ISSN(Online): 1927-5269
  • Started: 2012
  • Frequency: bimonthly

Journal Metrics

Google-based Impact Factor (2021): 1.93

h-index (July 2022): 48

i10-index (July 2022): 317

h5-index (2017-2021): 31

h5-median (2017-2021): 38

Learn more