contents · movement, started by teachers who were frustrated by their dependence on coursebooks...
TRANSCRIPT
1 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2
2 Dogme background.................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Historical context ............................................................................................................... 2
2.2 The Dogme Principles ......................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Techniques and strategies .................................................................................................. 3
2.4 Issues and implications....................................................................................................... 4
2.4.1 Unpredictability .......................................................................................................... 4
2.4.2 Affective considerations ............................................................................................. 4
2.4.3 Stimulus ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.4.4 Structure .................................................................................................................... 5
3 Context relevance ...................................................................................................................... 5
4 The Lesson ................................................................................................................................. 5
4.1 Lesson outline .................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 6
5 Post-lesson reflection and evaluation ........................................................................................ 7
5.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Follow-up work .................................................................................................................. 7
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendices...................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix 1: Venn Diagram .......................................................................................................... 10
Appendix 2: Survey templates ..................................................................................................... 10
Appendix 3: Student questionnaire .............................................................................................. 11
Appendix 4: Responding to individual needs ................................................................................ 11
Appendix 5: Tools and strategies used ......................................................................................... 12
Appendix 6: Emergent language and course aims ........................................................................ 12
Appendix 7: Time spent on Dogme activities ................................................................................ 13
Appendix 8: Effectiveness of Dogme activities ............................................................................. 13
Appendix 9 .................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix 10: whiteboard picture................................................................................................. 14
Appendix 11: My Dogme note-taking template ............................................................................ 15
Appendix 12: Lesson plan ............................................................................................................ 16
Appendix 13: Dogme framework (Lackman, 2019:10) .............................................................. 18
2 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
1 Introduction
My approach to planning has always been “transmissive and outcomes-oriented” (Anderson, 2015:228); controlling and predicting learning made me feel safer. Furthermore, curiosity to use new online resources and create more attractive materials added more planning hours to my schedule.
When I first heard of Dogme, I was sceptical and critical of its usefulness; I considered it a lazy approach for teachers who wanted to avoid planning and preparation.
After reading more about Dogme, I now believe it is not merely improvising in class, but a challenging and unpredictable approach (Wright and Broadus, 2013) that trains teachers to become more focussed on their learners’ emergent needs. Dogme challenged my belief that a professional teacher is one who carries a big pile of materials and pre-determines learning outcomes. It suggests that effective teaching is reactive, i.e. when teachers can react to learning affordances (Anderson, 2015).
As also mentioned in my PDA, Dogme could help overcome my teaching weaknesses; responding to learners’ output and applying affordance-based (Anderson, 2015) teaching, i.e. dealing with emergent language. I have not consistently exploited the language that emerges through my learners’ need to communicate; therefore, I chose Dogme to experiment on a more responsive teaching approach.
2 Dogme background
2.1 Historical context
Dogme was inspired in 1995, when Scott Thornbury watched a Lars Von Trier film, which he
described as minimalistic and authentic instead of dazzling viewers with special effects and
trickery (Thornbury, 2000).
He wrote an article about the need for a similar teaching approach, which received a lot of
interest; as a result, Dogme was born. Meddings and Thornbury (2017) describe it as a
movement, started by teachers who were frustrated by their dependence on coursebooks
and other teaching materials (2013).
As Meddings and Thornbury (2017) explain, at the time Dogme emerged, although the
communicative approach was popular, a-priori syllabuses, i.e controlling selection and
sequence of language items, were still the norm. Moving from product to process learning
was the next step, i.e. focusing not on what is learned but how it is learned, i.e. with task-
based lessons. Thus, Dogme was a learner-centred and process-focussed philosophy, geared
towards making the opposite of a-priori; an a-posteriori syllabus based on learners’ needs.
3 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
At first, Dogme was criticised (Meddings and Thornbury, 2017); however, it is currently
popular among teachers and a common choice for experimental practice, giving DELTA
candidates an opportunity to truly reflect on their teaching (Wright and Broadus, 2013).
2.2 The Dogme Principles
Dogme lends itself to a learner-centred curriculum; it focuses on the process of
communicating and learning (Meddings and Thornbury, 2017). The heart of Dogme is
uncovering “the syllabus within” instead of covering items on a syllabus (Meddings and
Thornbury, 2017:16). The writers state that its three main principles are that it is:
1. Conversation driven. Chatting and interacting with the teacher does not cause
anxiety; on the contrary, it relaxes and motivates learners, providing a sense of
achievement in communicating with a proficient speaker.
2. Materials light. It is not suggested that coursebooks have no value; simply that over-
reliance is not beneficial.
3. Focussed on emergent language. Dogme does not focus on discrete-item teaching,
there is no hidden agenda to teach grammar. Through the emergence of language,
acquisition occurs.
2.3 Techniques and strategies
A Dogme class does not necessarily lack structure. Meddings and Thornbury (2017) propose
a useful structure:
1. Set it up: teachers/learners decide on a topic.
2. Let it run: learners complete a task or engage in discussion about the selected topic.
3. Round it off: groups report their opinions or survey results. The teacher provides
feedback at that stage, although feedback can be ongoing.
4. Follow up: Consolidation of learning through classwork or homework.
McCabe (2005) also mentions writing blog posts, doing fluency tasks or students teaching
lessons as ideal Dogme activities.
Crabbe (2007) suggests another interesting framework of learning opportunities which can
be used in Dogme classes:
• input
• output
• rehearsal
• interaction
• feedback
• language understanding
• learning understanding
4 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Meddings and Thornbury (2017) highlight the following strategies of dealing with emergent
language as the protein of Dogme:
Reward it Praise learners for their contributions
Retrieve it Use it-don’t ignore it
Repeat it Drill it
Recast it Upgrade it
Report it Ask learners to report findings
Recycle it Encourage learners to use it in context
Record it Ensure learners keep notes
Research it Help learners notice patterns
Reference it Link it to your syllabus
Review it Ask learners what they have learned or understood at the end of class
2.4 Issues and implications
2.4.1 Unpredictability
Dogme is risky, hence, inexperienced or non-native speaker teachers may find it
overwhelming and choose to rely on coursebooks and lesson plans instead; unless they were
trained to be reactive teachers. To make the transition from proactive to reactive teaching
smoother, Dogme can be a “supplementary approach” (McCabe, 2005:335). Meddings and
Thornbury (2017) state that teachers can use:
• a coursebook and slowly incorporate unplugged activities.
• predictable topics that can be easily personalized, e.g. or how they got their name.
• templates that can be used with any topic, e.g. Venn diagrams (Appendix 1) or
surveys (Appendix 2).
2.4.2 Affective considerations
Shy students, or students from input-oriented backgrounds, e.g. China, where the teacher is
the authority in the classroom, may feel uncomfortable if put in the spotlight and fail to notice
Dogme’s usefulness. Therefore, teachers should:
• explain the principles and benefits of Dogme before class.
• be sensitive to learners’ mood.
• switch to familiar approaches at the first sign of discomfort.
• be patient; it might take many lessons for students to become comfortable with
Dogme.
2.4.3 Stimulus
5 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
The lack of coursebooks or materials does not equal a lack of stimulus. According to Meddings
and Thornbury (2017), learners can bring texts about topics that interest them. Teachers can
also use the news or invite a guest that the class can interview.
2.4.4 Structure
Dogme is not necessarily unstructured; there are certain frameworks (2.3) teachers can follow
to feel more prepared.
Teachers should also keep track of the emergent language. One of my colleagues records it in
a google doc which is shared with class. Another idea is to encourage students to record it in
their notebooks or their digital notebooks, where they can also upload pictures of the
whiteboard.
Dogme classes should be linked to course aims (2.3), e.g. if functional language to express
opinion is an item on the syllabus, it can be practised in Dogme conversation classes.
Finally, students can keep their activities in portfolios (2.3) and organise them by topic or by
objective achieved.
3 Context relevance
My current group consists of five adult learners and is a highly mixed level group. Planning is
challenging; materials and activities must cater for all levels and needs. I contend that since
the focus of Dogme is the learner and not the syllabus or the coursebook, it will allow for
differentiated learning.
Dogme is ideal for my students, who are Catalan, therefore highly social in nature; pair and
group activities always stimulate and engage them.
This is a General English course with a communicative approach; lessons are mostly
conversation-focused and based on learners’ interests; hence, a Dogme class will be in line
with the teaching context.
Finally, since my learners meet after work and energy levels can be low, a conversation-driven
will engage them more than controlled language-focussed activities.
4 The Lesson
4.1 Lesson outline
I will combine the frameworks in 2.3 and begin by talking to students about a topic for one
minute. Students will be allowed to ask for repetition or clarification. After the input stage,
they will:
6 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
• prepare a mini presentation about a topic they choose
• present it in pairs, then in open class
• reflect on all the presentations, choose their favourite and justify their choice.
Feedback will be ongoing and will focus on emergent language. I will make on-the-spot
decisions about activities to exploit emergent language, using strategies from 2.3.
Interrupting to ask for repetition and clarification resonate with the communicative
approach of the course; they are also one of the course aims.
(Appendix 12)
4.2 Objectives
My teaching objectives for this lesson will be:
1. To focus my teacher talk on the local and relevant needs of the people in the room
(Thornbury, 2000).
2. To feel more confident to create on-the-spot activities to practise emergent language
and identify their effectiveness.
3. To link emergent language to course aims or previously learned language.
The objectives for my learners will be:
1. To notice and explore emergent language beyond just taking notes and doing
homework.
2. To use each other as a resource and rely less on the teacher.
4.3 Evaluation
To evaluate overall effectiveness of the lesson I will distribute post-lesson questionnaires
(appendix 3) to find out how useful learners found the lesson.
To evaluate teaching objectives, I will audio-record the class and keep notes on:
• the quantity and quality of my responses to learners’ individual needs (Appendix 4).
• the activities and strategies used and their results (Appendix 5).
• how I created a link between emergent language and syllabus items (Appendix 6).
To evaluate learners’ objectives, I will have a follow-up conversation with them to reflect on
new language and how they have used it. I will also take notes and use the recording to find
out the percentage of student-student interaction versus student-teacher interaction.
7 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
5 Post-lesson reflection and evaluation
5.1 Objectives
Overall, the lesson exceeded my expectations. Allowing learners choice of topic resulted in
maximum engagement and interaction.
I have achieved my teaching aims, as I used a variety of activities to deal with learner
output, (appendix 7). Emphasis was placed on upgrading language and less time was
dedicated to pair and group chats to recycle the language. What students found particularly
useful, was research it; they looked up and explained patterns, e.g. why very awful is
inaccurate. Then, they added more ungradable adjectives to the list, such as amazing or
fantastic (appendix 8). During the reflection stage, many students said this activity really
helped them notice and learn from their errors.
Reference to syllabus items was achieved to an extent, e.g. by recycling the present perfect
with have you ever questions to talk about experiences mentioned by students (appendix 9).
I focussed on individual needs by giving immediate feedback during pair work and delayed
post-discussion correction. Moreover, I addressed individual errors, e.g. phonological,
grammatical, lexical and helped improve their discourse competence with fillers, e.g. well
instead of bueno (appendix 10).
I was concerned that immediate correction might have been more useful; however, learners
stated that this delayed language focus did not block their fluency.
Students gave each other feedback on language, e.g. Ariadna corrected Neus when she said
/spuːk/ for spoke. They used emergent language in mini chats, like true for you or have you
ever done that? My teacher intervention was minimal while STT was high (see appendix).
According to feedback, this class was more enjoyable and useful than coursebook-based
classes. I was also surprised but pleased to witness that Esther, the weakest student, felt
comfortable to recount her summer holidays, interacted well with her peers and back-
channelled them for the first time.
5.2 Follow-up work
I am now convinced that Dogme is beneficial and will use it more in the future; especially
with Mediterranean students who are highly interpersonal. I will create my own templates
to better and faster record learner output, so that I deal with it more effectively (appendix
12). When I feel more confident, I will experiment with a true material and lesson plan-free
Dogme lesson (appendix 13).
8 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
With lower levels, I will allow students to choose their own materials and prepare mini-
presentations before class; preparation and rehearsal will increase confidence and improve
performance.
Recording was a powerful reflection tool for me; listening to learner output helped me
better understand their needs. I will also encourage learners to record themselves, listen to
the recording after or during class with their headphones, and write down any problems
they notice.
9 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Bibliography
Anderson, J. (2015). Affordance, learning opportunities, and the lesson plan pro forma. ELT
Journal, 69(3), pp.228-238.
Crabbe, D. (2007). Learning opportunities: adding learning value to tasks. ELT Journal, 61(2),
pp.117-125.
Lackman, K. (2019). [online] Kenlackman.com. Available at:
http://kenlackman.com/files/cathandoutfinal.pdf [Accessed 28 Sep. 2019].
McCabe, D. Dogme. (2005). ELT Journal, 59(4), pp.333-335.
Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2017). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language
Teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen GmbH.
Thornbury, S. (2019). [online] Nebula.wsimg.com. Available at:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/9b68504ac4d9fc9129802929d38157f5?AccessKeyId=186A535D1
BA4FC995A73&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 [Accessed 11 Jun. 2019].
Thornbury, S. (2013) The language Teacher. [online] Nebula.wsimg.com. Available at:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/1314c2b2a10b6b7eb1b3065ff3faf353?AccessKeyId=186A535D1B
A4FC995A73&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 [Accessed 11 Jun. 2019].
Thornbury, S. (2004). Articles for the learner-centred teacher. [online] Old.hltmag.co.uk.
Available at: http://old.hltmag.co.uk/mar05/mart03.htm [Accessed 11 Jun. 2019].
Thornbury, S. (2000). A Dogma for EFL. IATEFL issues, 153, 2.
Wright, J., and Broadus, C. R. 2013. Experimental Practice in ELT: Walk on the Wild Side., available at www.scribd.com, www.scribd.com/read/210947438/Experimental-Practice-in-ELT-Walk-on-the-wild-side#. (Accessed 20 May 2019)
10 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendices
Appendix 1: Venn Diagram
Appendix 2: Survey templates
Student’s name:
Statements I agree I disagree I am not sure
e.g. Married people should only go out with other couples.
√
11 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendix 3: Student questionnaire
Please answer the questions in English or Spanish. Thank you.
Did you enjoy the lesson?
Did you find the lesson useful? How?
What did you learn from this lesson?
How could the lesson be improved?
Did the teacher respond to your individual learning needs?
Did you give or receive helpful feedback from your classmates?
Did you need more guidance or support from the teacher? Describe how.
Appendix 4: Responding to individual needs
Examples of how T responded to individual needs Antoni
Neus
Ariadna
Esther
Isabel
12 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendix 5: Tools and strategies used
On-the-spot activities/strategies used results/ usefulness
Appendix 6: Emergent language and course aims
Emergent language Link to course aims or previously learned language
13 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendix 7: Time spent on Dogme activities
Appendix 8: Effectiveness of Dogme activities
Reward it Drill it Upgrade it Research it Review it Recycle it Reference it
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reward it
Upgrade it
Repeat it
Research it
Recycle it
Reference it
Review it
Effectiveness of Dogme activities
14 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendix 9
Emergent language Link to course aims or previously learned language
Bungee jumping (puenting)
Present perfect – have you ever done bungee jumping?
“Not now but in the past I liked sunbathing”
I used to like sunbathing but I don’t anymore
Avoidance of using the past form of discover and jump
Linked to -ed past ending and elicited correct pronunciation
Mispronunciation of sufficient.
Elicited taught synonym: enough
“Nobody told me”
Elicited the question “did anyone tell you that..” to link to previously taught indefinite pronouns.
Appendix 10: whiteboard picture
15 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendix 11: My Dogme note-taking template
Reward it Upgrade it Drill it
Research it Recycle it Review it
Reference it Other
16 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendix 12: Lesson plan
Stage Timing Aims Procedure Interaction
Set it up/ Input stage
3-4’ 1. To practice reciprocal listening and allow students control over input.
2. To engage and motivate students to listen.
3. To provide a stimulus for the lesson.
• T tells ss that she is going to talk to them about the advantages and disadvantages of living abroad. She tells ss they can interrupt and ask questions at any point.
T to ss
Let it run/ Rehearsal
stage
5’ 1. To increase confidence by allowing preparation.
2. To provide feedback on language where necessary.
• T tells ss to think of a topic they would like to talk about for about one minute. She writes some ideas on the wb, e.g. a hobby, a friend, their favourite book/film, etc. She gives ss preparation time and encourages ss to take notes.
• T monitors and provides help if ss seek it.
individual
Round it off/ Output and interaction
stage
5’-7’
1. To use each other as a feedback resource.
2. To rehearse real-life situations, NN speaker to NN speaker.
3. To use compensation strategies for communication breakdowns.
4. To practice dialogic speech and interactional competence.
• T tells ss to rehearse their presentation in pairs. Partners can interrupt, ask for clarifications or ask questions. She encourages peer feedback.
• T monitors and provides individual feedback where necessary.
PW
15-20’
• T tells ss to repeat their presentation in whole class. When one classmate talks about their topic, the others can interrupt, ask for clarifications or ask questions.
WHC
17 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
• Ss do their-mini presentations and engage in interaction. T takes notes of language to explore in feedback stage.
Feedback slot 1/
Language understanding
5-10’ 1. To exploit and upgrade learner output
2. To ensure learners keep a record of emergent language
• T praises ss for examples of good language use and records them on wb.
• T elicits reformulation of inaccurate utterances.
• T drills words ss mispronounced.
• T boards sentences with emergent language and ss discuss if they are true for them.
• T encourages ss to take notes.
• T encourages ss to share a picture of the wb on their WhatsApp group.
• T decides and sets up further on-the-spot activities
T to ss
Follow- up / Learning understanding
10’ 1. To provide fluency practice 2. To allow students to reflect on
their own and their peers’ strengths and weaknesses.
• T encourages ss to discuss in groups which presentation they enjoyed and why. Ss can talk about content, language use and general performance, e.g. pronunciation, enthusiasm, fluency.
• Ss report in open class.
GW
Abbreviations
T Ss
Wb PW GW
WHC
Teacher Students Whiteboard Pair work Group work Whole Class
18 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e
Appendix 13: Dogme framework (Lackman, 2019:10)