 |
| Dogmexperimentation |
I decided
to give my Dogme ELT / Teaching Unplugged blog-quest a rest so that I
could reflect on what I learned after my first three posts and the Dogme experiments in my own teaching. Like I
mentioned earlier (here, here, and here, to be exact), Dogme ELT seems
like the perfect solution to teaching.
There
are very strong pro-Dogme
views, mostly centered around the evilness of text books and the
benefits of student-centered learning (ideas that I totally agree
with!). However, there are also very strong anti-Dogme views. (I
thought that Phil Wade at EFLthoughtsandreflections did a great job
of rounding up some these criticisms of Dogme ELT / TeachingUnplugged and providing nice responses)
Overall,
however, Dogme seems to come out ahead. So,
if it's so great, why is it not a widely accepted strategy?
Experiments
and Lingering Concerns
Over the
last few months, I have been trying to implement pieces of Dogme ELT
into my teaching. I am one of those teachers who (in 90% of my
courses) is bound by administrative policies to a text book and a
lesson plan. I believe this to be a disadvantage to my students and
to my teaching, and I consciously try to add more authentic
communicative activities whenever I can.
During
this time of “Dogmexperimentation,” I have noticed that I am more
willing to let the lesson “flow,” and more willing to change the
activities to address learner needs on the spur of the moment than I
was before. I have also had a lot of success using a Dogme-like
approach to eliciting topical vocabulary and phrases. However, in the
lessons that I have tried to create a more Dogme-like environment, I
have been mostly dissatisfied with the outcomes. Perhaps it is my
lack of training in emergent language techniques, or maybe it is my
communication-over-grammar emphasis—I'm not sure. What I do know,
though, is that I have some concerns about Dogme.
My
concerns are mostly questions, and maybe the future will bring
answers. I want to know what the research will say about Dogme ELT.
How is the long-term learning? Dogme provides nice situations for
conversation and practice, but in the big picture, how much language
information do students actually acquire through this teaching
method/approach/attitude? Is Dogme merely whole-class tutoring or
language consulting? How do we incorporate the issues that the
students don't know they don't know? What is the relative “learning
weight” of (semi-random) learner-fronted content vs. a progressive
syllabus that covers important language functions? In other words,
how important is immediate relevance really? What about graded
grammar items? On the side of motivation and attitude, will students
prefer this approach? Regardless of the possible benefits, is there a
way to make this approach/method/attitude appear to be the same
caliber of teaching as a textbook provides?
So,
What's the Solution to the Dogme Question?
In my
opinion, there is no solution, but not in a “OMG it's totally
hopeless” sense. There is no solution because there needs to be no
solution—right now. The critics need to keep being critical and the
extremists need to keep being extreme. We need Dogme extremists to
bring swing pendulum away from the set-in-stone, material-based trend
we've gotten into, and we need anti-Dogme critics to bring us back
towards reality, so that we don't go head-over-heels and forget about
the lingering questions and problems. Now that both sides are doing
their jobs, we can watch, and then we can catch the pendulum in the
middle.
