religious fervour and pedagogical evangelism
(My contribution to the ＃dogmeme, with advance apologies to Karenne Sylvester)
Teachers have a lot of people telling them what to teach, and how to teach it. Governments looking for cheap votes. Parents who want to abdicate themselves from the responsibility of raising their own children. Administrators who need to hit targets, meet budgets and check boxes. Publishers with units to shift. That is exactly why I engage in my own self-initiated professional development. When I visit conferences, talk to other teachers, blog, tweet, and do all that other stuff I want to hear what I could do. Or what I might do. Or what may, perhaps be worth thinking about. Sure, tell me what works for you…. but let me think about it and see if it works for me, please.
I am broadly sympathetic to the basic concepts of dogme. I certainly agree that coursebooks and pre-planned curricula built around grammar mcnuggets can be very restrictive, and that teachers should exploit emergent language, teaching affordances and other human unpredictables as best they can. I am not sure that this in itself constitutes a method, however… it is at best an approach. And if you are talking about the more rigorous, chaste versions of Dogme that might be called a method, then I am not really interested. I want to plug things in and interact with ideas from outside the classroom. I see it as equally restrictive to tie oneself to or deny yourself materials. This is the religious fervour to which I refer.
And as for the evangelism? I believe that classroom methods are a negotiation (implicit or explicit) between the teacher, the learner (s), the context and the moment. For that reason, I believe that unplugged teaching has a very important role at the right time, with the right participants, in the right situation…. but it is not the only way. If I were teaching advanced adult learners in small classes in Europe, I imagine a techno-dogme hybrid would be fantastic. But actually, very, very few teachers, in the wider world of English Language Education, are teaching in such a context. In fact, very, very few know what Dogme is, or ever will. And we bloggers and tweeters, we conference goers, the movers and shakers, sometimes need to remind ourselves that we are not typical, that we are lucky to have some choice about how and what we teach. Teachers can be afraid, tired, confused, or just plain uneducated. Like students, they need nurturing, not hectoring. So let’s not assume that anyone who doesn’t teach Dogme is too self-interested, too stupid or too lazy to try it.
Is ignorance always a sin?
This is an excellent and timely post, Darren, very thought provoking.
Your thoughts on how well known it is are bang on. On the MA course I’m doing in Manchester, with thirty something (onsite) experienced participants from all over the world, I have mentioned dogme a few times to various people. Only one person I’ve chatted to had heard of it. I’ve discussed now quite elderly methods such as TBLT and CLT with teachers who consider them new methodologies, launched into the world from the ivory towers of academics in the UK and the US, being forced on them in their context as being the ‘right’ thing to do, yet their background, context and experience tell them that other ways work and that is what they want to continue with. This is how it feels to be on the periphery.
However, I don’t think that Scott or Luke, or other ‘evangelisers’ (?) like Karenne for example, suggest that it is indeed a method. It has been suggested that it is more a way of thinking, a philosophy perhaps, believing that learner-centred teaching, the use of conversation and student generated material is the ‘best’ way. Like yourself, I like the idea of dogme, it appeals to me and reading that I do seems to support many things that dogme stands for. I think, though, that there are other techniques not associated with dogme that can support learning just as well.
I suppose it’s important when writing about teaching beliefs that we remember how forthright statements may be construed by others outside the same circle, dogme could easily become dogma with the wrong choice of words.
.-<9 No need for the apology, Darren, I'm not sure why you were worried but thank you anyway.
This is a great post and i agree with you in fact.
There are many ways to skin cats… My point in 8 is to dispell the whiney-ness of too many teachers who resort to "it's too difficult" as an excuse for not focusing on their students' needs (be that dogme or not dogme).
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Karenne Sylvester, Mo Sena. Mo Sena said: RT @kalinagoenglish: gr8 post by @livesofteachers is dogme evangelism? .-)) http://ow.ly/3fN3F [...]
Who is on the periphery? Is there even a centre?
; P
Ok, if you want me to bite, I will!
In terms of there being a perceived centre and periphery, whether conscious or unconscious, there is and there always has been. The centre is perhaps recognised more by those outside than by those inside. The centre is the world native English speakers; the old British empire and the current American political and cultural one. Many teachers who have learned English as a their second language consider themselves to be outside this ‘elite’ circle, and the way the industry currently is regarding inequality leaves a lot to be desired.
R
Darren eloquently sums up his (and my) approval and reservations with dogme. I like the religious ferver, and think if it has lasted this long, there must be something to it. I went to the MASH event in Tokyo in September and was turned on my head. It really did get me to question the old PPP paradigm that I have been using for years. I agree completely with Darren, though, that it is too restrictive, of use of materials. If treated as a guideline, a way to limit your tools while learning a new approach (or philosophy of teaching), then it is a good thing. Once adept at using a few simple materials in the right way, the approach can be expanded.
Do get the the book “Teaching Unplugged”. Although ridiculously expensive for its size, it makes up for that by packing in only the most essential elements to understand the approach, a stepping stone to working the approach on your own. And you don’t have to wade through any bullshit.
Oh, and Richard, I had the same thought as Darren, “Why would somebody taking an MA in Manchester be considered on the periphery of the field?” Now I see your on the periphery of the center of the field (UK academia), which is outmoded. Do I have that right?
The irony (and difficulty) of promoting something called dogme has not been lost on us. One of the first dogmetic articles was called “Teaching unplugged (or: That’s Dogme with an E)”. Clearly, there’s a thin line between what sounds like evangelizing and what is simply a point of view, dogma vs dogme. In our defence, this is what we wrote in the Introduction to Teaching Unplugged:
In proposing an alternative to transmission-type, teacher-led teaching, Claire Kramsch wrote:
A dialogic pedagogy is unlike traditional pedagogy …it sets new goals for teachers – poetic, psychological, political goals that … do not constitute any easy-to-follow method. .. Such a pedagogy should better be described, not as a blueprint for how to teach foreign languages, but as another way of being a language teacher.
Dogme, too, is more than simply a new set of techniques and procedures. It is more an attitude shift, a state of mind, a different way of being a teacher. In fact, because it prioritises the local over the global, and the particular over the general, the individual over the crowd, a Dogme approach will vary according to its context. For some teachers and in some situations, it may be enough to intersperse their teaching with ‘Dogme moments’, such as when a student’s utterance offers a learning opportunity and the lesson takes a brief detour in pursuit of it. Other teachers may be motivated to – or in a position where they are allowed to – design their whole course according to Dogme principles.
Dogme techniques and activities don’t in themselves constitute a fixed ‘method’ or a ‘one-size-fits-all’ prescription for effective teaching. We hope, though, that by experimenting with these techniques and activities in ways that are sensitive to your teaching context, it is possible to begin to experience another way of being a language teacher.
If I might bite back Richard….
The vast majority of English learners worldwide;
1. Are taught by non-native speakers, largely in a shared L1
2. Are young learners
3. Are being taught with some kind of grammar translation methodology
3. Are using textbooks, approved by the state
4. Have never heard of you, me, or any of the other superstar bloggers and tweeters who like to busy themselves with this kind of discussion.
Our part of the industry does still discriminate against the non-native speaker to a degree, and thus some non-native speakers may be marginalised. But as part of a whole, we (those teaching adults, in private institutes, educated in native-speaking countries, holders of TEFL qualifications) are insignificant. I’d say we are pretty bloody peripheral!
Thanks Scott. This wasn’t necessarily directed at you – aside from the anti-technology sniping you always seem to be pretty broad minded about what does and doesn’t constitute Dogme. The messiah is never as zealous as his disciples…
I suppose it’s a great joy to you and Mr. Meddings that Dogme has provoked such discussion, but at the same time it will be a burden to you both for the rest of your lives… it is something you will forever be forced to define and clarify.
I remember asking you the first time we met if there was an optimum Dogme context, to which you replied ‘No’. I don’t agree with you – I think that certain classrooms, teachers and learners combine to make unplugged teaching incredibly challenging, to no great effect. However, you qualified your answer further “…if you think of Dogme of being less a methodology and more an activity type, then it can happen anywhere… in Dogme moments..in the crevices of the lesson”
(http://www.livesofteachers.com/2009/11/23/an-interview-with-scott-thornbury/ around 13 minutes in)
That I can totally get behind. But then what distinguishes teaching unplugged from good practice or simple humanism? Why tag it with a name? I suppose there was (and still is) a need to shake teachers out of the textbook and syllabus torpor. The early incarnation of Dogme, with its vows of chastity, was deliberately provocative to this end (as I understand it, anyway). But perhaps such fervour is unsustainable. Some people have opened up the discussion, and are flexible in how they define Dogme. Some, not so much.
I should point out that the same applies to any kind of pedagogical evangelist. I had a very frustrating discussion recently with someone who was trying to persuade me to use a certain technology, one which I consider pointless at best. You would have loved it.
“…we are lucky to have some choice about how and what we teach.”
Thank you for making this point. There are so many thousands of teachers out there who, every day, have to cope with the frustration of seeing how institutionally-imposed, inappropriate tails wag their dogs.
I take your point and I don’t want to take over your post about dogme through getting into perspectives of hegemony in TESOL. Yes, most of the teachers are L2 English speakers and most of the learners are young, but whose language are they teaching/ learning? Why? And more pertinently to this context: Who is telling them how they should do it?
As you’ve just said: “there was (and still is) a need to shake teachers out of the textbook and syllabus torpor”. What if some teachers disagree and are having success with what others might define as ‘torpor’? Perhaps they use “some kind of grammar translation methodology”, believing that it worked for them and seems to be working for their students now? Is this ok, or should they listen to the new Western knowledge that seems to know best? ; )
I’ve heard this idea about ‘Dogmevangilism’ in that some dogmeists are too blinded by the light of Dogme to consider any alternative methodology before, but I’m still not entirely sure where it’s coming from. Having followed the Dogme ELT group and various ELT blogs for just over a year, I can honestly say I’ve never heard anyone say that Dogme is a one-size-fits-all type of pedagogy. Can you give some examples or links of some ‘Dogmevangilsm’ to back up your claims? Personally speaking, I consider myself a fan of Dogme and agree with a lot of the basic principles of Dogme but that doesn’t mean I do hard core Dogme with all my students. I pick and choose here and there some of the ideas that have evolved out of the Dogme discussion over the years and I implement them with my classes as and when appropriate, depending on their needs and interests. I would imagine that most dogmeists do the same. After all, doesn’t negotiation of learning styles and outcomes go to the heart of what Dogme is all about?
Richard – Whose language are they teaching? Are you saying that English is ‘our’ language? And that they are only learning it to communicate with ‘us’? What about the Chinese English teachers working in Eastern Russia? Or the teachers working out of the Philippines via Skype to Japan? But before we get to far off topic, you might be interested in these posts.. http://www.livesofteachers.com/tag/elf/
And yes, there is a mild contradiction there – the torpor refers to the state of commercial EFL (especially in Europe), which is largely driven by publishers and international tests rather than state criteria. I see Dogme as a reaction against that as much as anything else. Which partly explains why it may not work as well in all contexts. It requires a degree of teacher autonomy which not all teachers can take for granted. Other more revolutionary changes need to take place first – Dogme can be a part of that, perhaps, but other educational contexts will need to address their own problems in their own ways.
Peter – The link is in the very first line of this post, and this post is a response to it. But as I alluded to in my reply to Scott (above) Dogme-ists can be very balanced, and pedagogical evangelists can raise fire and brimstone from the pulpit on all kinds of topics.
I’m a reader rather than a contributor, but the Dogme list is still one of the best going…
In no way did I ever suggest that “they are only learning it to communicate with ‘us’?” As far as I can tell, nothing in my above statements suggested anything like it. And English is ‘our’ language insofar as we are native speakers, the perception being that to non-native speakers (in many cases) we are the linguistic targets for their development. Regarding the native speaker countries as the ‘centre’, I was suggesting that there is a certain amount of power associated with this, and this sort of power is not given up easily by those who would stand to lose politically or economically. So, the “time of great opportunity”, mentioned on the page you link to, “which could just as easily be buggered up by those shaping decisions”, possibly will be, because those shaping decisions are generally the ones who hold power, and therefore have something to lose.
If somehow Graddol’s book makes any of these ideas somehow outdated then I will find out. I have downloaded and fully intend to read Graddol’s book you mention and may write a post on my blog regarding this issue, rather than disrespectfully take your comments field any further along this tangential path.
“Teachers have a lot of people telling them what to teach, and how to teach it.”
I think you are right to begin the post with this comment- it’s easy to forget that many teachers around the globe are teaching in the state sector in their respective countries, using texts not of their choosing, for a very large number of hours per week. In our ‘Observations of Teaching and Learning’ i.e. observed and assessed lessons each year with the powers-that-be at the instituition where I work, we are required to show our adherence to the scheme of work (it’s all about evidence), make use of the offical government materials, demonstrate effective use of the available classroom technology (i.e. the IWB).. et cetera. Dealing effectively with the learners’ emergent language doesn’t come into the assessment criteria at all….
I’d like to think I incorporate dogme moments etc into my practice (long before I knew that that it what it was called… thanks, blogs like this one!) but I am completely sure that many of the (excellent)teachers in the same department as me haven’t even heard of it..so no, ignorance is not a sin.
Angela – You really ought to read this if you haven’t already… a great post from someone trying out Dogme in UK ESOL.
http://the-pln-staff-lounge.blogspot.com/2010/11/dogme-hard-with-vengence.html
[...] the lives of teachers » Blog Archive » religious fervour and … [...]
Karenne, Kevin, Glennie…. sorry, for some reason you ended up in the spam folder. All clear now!
Darren- Thank you so much for this link- it’s a superb post and accurately describes the current UK ESOL teaching/ learning context, I think. It’s also really encouraging to find others in same boat as you!
I came back anyway (re disappearing into spam)! Honestly Darren, although I am a passionate dogmeist I don’t actually say that it’s the only way to teach. It’s what works for me and so I like to promote it.
I’m actually, in life, an …sssh, an agnostic as I abhor religious fervour on both sides of the fence (atheists included!) When it comes to teaching, I see it as you, that the
“classroom methods are a negotiation (implicit or explicit) between the teacher, the learner (s), the context and the moment.”
In my view, dogme is not a method but an approach, or to be more accurate, a state of mind upon entering the classroom- holding on the ideals of pulling information out of the students not pushing it into the them. Still, even that is context driven…
K
oh, and I should have said also I like to passionately defend it too… (when attacked from positions of less than critical thinking…)
I really appreciated this post. Perhaps everyone who reads this needs to re-tweet it, as well as send an email copy to their admins, parents and other so-called constituencies who claim to have our best interests at heart.