International Symposium on Language and Communication: Research trends and challenges
Dogme Unplugged Catherine Akca1 1
Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey,
[email protected]
Abstract: The term Dogme was first applied in an ELT context in 2000, when it was used to advocate the teaching of English as a foreign language in a conversation-driven way, with minimum reliance on materials, such as course books and technology, and maximum exploitation of language as it emerged in the classroom. In such an environment, the students themselves and the teacher would be the primary resources. Over the succeeding decade, whilst the Dogme approach was embraced by numbers of ELT practitioners in various parts of the world, it also attracted considerable criticism from other members of the ELT community. Although the concept has often been discussed at international ELT conferences and has been the source of fruitful debate in the blogosphere, Dogme appears to be relatively little known in Turkey, and under-researched in general. This paper seeks to review the Dogme approach to ELT, to highlight its perceived advantages and disadvantages, to begin to consider its appropriateness in a Turkish context, and to suggest that the debate surrounding Dogme ELT should be clarified by academic research. Keywords: Dogme, Emergent Language, Conversation, ELT, Motivation
1.
Introduction
English Language Teaching (ELT) has become a multi-million pound global industry, a significant component of which is the flourishing teaching materials sector. In many language teaching contexts, the coursebook is as inevitable a feature of the classroom environment as are the teacher and students. Indeed, the coursebook itself is likely to be supplemented by, at the very least, a workbook and a DVD. Alongside the coursebook, the student in the classroom may be expected to use a variety of handouts provided by the teacher and, in the digital era, perhaps engage in activities using laptop computers or interactive whiteboard technology. Clearly, the volume of language teaching materials available is proportional to the market demand for them. Moreover, trends in methodology shape the design of such materials. Thus, most modern coursebooks purport to adopt a communicative approach to language teaching, in line with the shift which took place in ELT research and practice in the 1970s away from grammar-centred methodologies towards a focus “on making the classroom an environment for authentic communication” (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 71). Nonetheless, despite market trends and methodological developments, questions have long been raised and continue to be raised about the extent to which teaching materials should be allowed to determine the content of ELT, and about the degree to which such prefabricated materials do actually engender authentic communication.
As early as 1981, Allwright argued that “The whole business of the management of learning is far too complex to be satisfactorily catered for by a pre-packaged set of decisions embodied in teaching materials” (p. 9). He highlighted the restrictive nature of language teaching materials, which “pre-empt many of the decisions learners might be trained to make for themselves” (p. 14), and suggested that ELT content should not simply consist of knowledge taught to students, but that it should be an “emergent” phenomenon, arising out of “the interactive nature of classroom events” (p. 8). However, although Allwright was critical of over-reliance upon teaching materials, which he believed reduced the learners’ own input into the communicative language learning process, he did not go so far as to dismiss such materials entirely. Rather, he advocated a switch in emphasis from “teaching materials” to “learning materials”, to be developed in a context of co-operative language learning management (Allwright, 1981). In 2000, in similar but much more radical vein, Scott Thornbury published an article which appeared to challenge the very use of teaching materials in the language classroom. Thornbury argued that the plethora of teaching resources brought into the contemporary ELT classroom impeded authentic communication because such materials had no relevance to the “inner lives” of the learners themselves. He proposed that “Teaching should be done using only the resources that teachers and students bring to the classroom – i.e. themselves – and whatever happens to be in the classroom” (Thornbury, 2000, p. 2). To reinforce his argument, Thornbury drew a comparison between the type of teaching he was advocating and the manifesto of the Dogme 95 Danish film-making collective, which had renounced technological effects, imported sets and props, genres and artificiality, in favour of a return to a purer style of film-making, a more traditional emphasis upon story and character, and an approach rooted in reality (Thornbury, 2000; Von Trier & Vinterberg, 2005, pp.87-88). Using this analogy, Thornbury called for a Dogme approach to ELT. This would involve renouncing extraneous materials, technologies, methodologies and contexts, and returning to a purer form of teaching – or rather learning – stemming from the communicative interaction between the teacher and learners in the classroom, and grounded in the real-life concerns of the participants (Thornbury, 2000). Thornbury’s challenge to the materials-driven ethos prevalent in contemporary language teaching generated interest amongst a number of ELT practitioners and soon resulted in the establishment of a prolific online discussion group dedicated to Dogme ELT (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme), which was to play a role in the development of the approach over the subsequent decade: We are a mix of teachers, trainers and writers working in a wide range of contexts, who are committed to a belief that language learning is both socially motivated and socially constructed, and to this end we are seeking alternatives to models of instruction that are mediated primarily through materials and whose objective is the delivery of "grammar mcnuggets". We are looking for ways of exploiting the learning opportunities offered by the raw material of the classroom, that is the language that emerges from the needs, interests, concerns and desires of the people in the room (Thornbury, 2001a).
As Dogme ELT gained publicity in this way, and through articles written by Thornbury and his colleague Luke Meddings (Thornbury, 2000; Thornbury & Meddings, 2001; Meddings & Thornbury, 2003; Thornbury, 2005), the approach began to be espoused by teachers in various parts of the world. This is evidenced in the reflective accounts of classroom practice and experiences which continue to inform the ELT blogosphere (see Appendix 1 for a list of blogs concerned with Dogme ELT), and to engage the interest and involvement of teachers. On a different plane, presentations, discussion and indeed hot debate about Dogme ELT are now perennial features of both national and international ELT conferences. Elsewhere, the concept of Dogme ELT has, perhaps paradoxically, begun to be recognised in language teaching methodology books (Hall, 2011). Moreover, Meddings and Thornbury have recently published the first book devoted entirely to the principles and practice of Dogme ELT (2009). Entitled Teaching Unplugged, the book derives its name from an analogy made between musical performances free of electronic amplification or modification and the notion that Dogme ELT is an approach “free ... from materials, aids and technology” (Thornbury, 2001b; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 7). Indeed, the phrase “teaching unplugged” has become synonymous with applying the Dogme approach to ELT. Evidently, the Dogme approach to ELT, or teaching unplugged, has gained impetus over the last decade, at least in the contexts alluded to above. On the other hand, it has also sparked controversy amongst ELT professionals (see Section 5, below for more detail). One of the criticisms levelled has been the lack of a sound theoretical basis to underpin the approach (Harmer, 2010). In response, proponents of the Dogme style of language teaching have situated it within a “rich tradition of alternative, progressive, critical and humanist educational theory” (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p.7; Harmer, 2010); related it to emergent systems theory (p. 19); and associated it to varying degrees, at least on a philosophical level, with earlier concepts in ELT, such as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-Based Learning (TBL) (see Section 4, below for more detail). Regardless of the debate about whether or not the approach is sufficiently well-grounded in theory, few would dispute the fact that Dogme ELT is currently under-researched. As the above discussion indicates, the available literature consists principally of the published works of Meddings and Thornbury, supplemented by the online reflections and guidance of Dogme practitioners, “blogged” reports of action research, and online material fed back from ELT conferences. These sources have sought primarily to promote, develop or defend the approach, rather than to subject it to rigorous academic analysis. Thus, to date, the outcomes of Dogme learning have often been reported on a relatively anecdotal basis. On the other hand, one project which did involve qualitative research, aimed at determining the attitudes of teachers and students in the UK towards the tenets of Dogme ELT, was limited by the small size of the populations it surveyed, as its author has conceded (Sketchley, 2011). Nonetheless, the lack of research into Dogme ELT is now being addressed. A collection of research papers, with the working title Researching Dogme, is scheduled for publication in 2014 (Thornbury, 2011). The eventual completion of this project may provide answers to some of the questions surrounding Dogme ELT, and therefore help to validate the approach.
Having traced something of the history and development of the concept, the remainder of this paper attempts to outline the fundamental principles of Dogme ELT; to look briefly at the practice of teaching unplugged; to describe how proponents of the approach have situated it in relation to more general theories of education and of second language teaching; and to discuss aspects of the debate surrounding the concept. It does so with the intention of drawing the attention of a wider audience to Dogme ELT. For instance, here in Turkey, the notion of teaching unplugged may be completely new to many professionals involved in mainstream English language teaching, whether in state schools or at universities in the public sector (although this is less likely to be the case in the private sector). Ultimately, the aim of this paper is to encourage more teachers to try teaching unplugged and more academics to evaluate the approach in their own local context, thereby contributing both to the practical development of Dogme ELT and to its theoretical validation.
2.
The Dogme Approach to ELT
2.1
The Concept of Dogme ELT
The term Dogme ELT is used to describe the teaching of English as a foreign language in a conversation-driven way, with minimum reliance on materials and maximum exploitation of the language which emerges in the classroom (Thornbury, 2001; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). The Dogme approach has been called, variously, a “pre-method” type of teaching, requiring simply a room, chairs, a board, a teacher and some students (Thornbury, 2001); “a moveable feast: difficult to pin down, endlessly adaptive” (Thornbury & Meddings, cited in Sketchley, 2011, p. 52); and “a state of mind” (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 21). Hall has defined Dogme ELT as “both a way of teaching and an overt attitude to teaching” (2011, p. 40). As the works cited imply, Dogme is clearly not a language teaching methodology per se. Rather, Dogme may be defined as a philosophy of teaching, which is in no way prescriptive, but which is given coherence by the three core principles outlined below.
2.2
Principles of Dogme ELT
In the decade following the inception of the approach, three key principles underpinning Dogme ELT were made explicit (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009), as follows.
2.2.1
Conversation-Driven
The content of a Dogme ELT lesson is not pre-planned around a coursebook supplemented by various printed or technology-based teaching aids. On the contrary, content emerges from real conversation, which is generated in the classroom and allowed to take its course (Thornbury, 2000; Thornbury & Meddings, 2001; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). In other words, the lesson is shaped at least as much by the students, as by the teacher. Thus, Dogme ELT involves a shift in the balance of power in the classroom, away from the paradigm of a dominant teacher who delivers knowledge to students who attempt to learn it, to a community model in which learning is believed to be co-constructed through the communicative interaction which takes place between all the participants in the experience
(Meddings & Thornbury, 2003; McCabe, 2005; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). Moreover, because the learners become involved in dialogue which is authentic and relevant to their own lives, interests and needs, it is argued that they engage more thoroughly with the lesson and the language, and more readily with each other; become more resourceful; contribute more to the process; and thus learn more effectively (Thornbury & Meddings, 2001; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009; Meddings, 2012). The conversation-driven ethos of Dogme ELT is based upon several assumptions, including that “the best way to learn how to communicate is by communicating” (Allwright, paraphrased by Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 17); that, in natural language acquisition, fluency precedes accuracy (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 9); that conversation involves the construction of coherent stretches of discourse, which provides a better foundation for real-life language use than would the production of isolated albeit grammatically accurate sentences (p. 9); and that the dialogic nature of conversation facilitates the process termed “scaffolding” (Bruner, cited in Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p.10), whereby the teacher helps the learners to reformulate, repair, or refine the emergent language, and thus to become more proficient.
2.2.2
Materials-Light
In the article which gave rise to Dogme ELT, Thornbury appeared to advocate a language classroom entirely free of materials, aids and technology (2000). However, Meddings and Thornbury subsequently clarified their position, arguing that they were not against coursebooks, materials or technology in themselves, but that the learners’ ownership of the language learning process is impeded by “the prevailing culture of mass-produced, shrinkwrapped lessons,” and by the notion that “the learning of a language runs along a predetermined route with the regularity and efficiency of a Swiss train” (Thornbury & Meddings, 2001; Meddings & Thornbury, 2003). In other words, since Dogme ELT assumes that language learning is organic rather than linear, and that learning emerges not as the product of artificial communicative activities but through the process of teacher and learners sharing and building knowledge in authentic conversation, coursebooks and other extraneous teaching aids are regarded as generally obstructive and unnecessary. On the other hand, materials which belong to, have been prepared by, or are of personal interest to the learners themselves are to be welcomed, in so far as they are likely to stimulate real conversation in the classroom. Thus, Dogme has been characterised as “materials-light” rather than materials-free teaching (Thornbury & Meddings, 2001; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). “Dogme-friendly” materials might include photos, newspaper items, original texts written or recorded by the learners, music available on the learners’ mobile phones, etc.
2.2.3
Focused on Emergent Language
Perhaps the most interesting of the core tenets of Dogme ELT is the idea that the language content of a lesson should emerge from the conversation which takes place between the participants involved (Thornbury & Meddings, 2001). Since the direction which any conversation may take is unpredictable, it follows that there can be no rigid adherence to a pre-ordained functional or grammatical syllabus in such a context. On the other hand, while
a Dogme approach to ELT is of its nature conversation-driven, this does not mean that a Dogme lesson is equivalent to a speaking lesson. On the contrary, the language which emerges in the course of classroom interaction to become the focus of the lesson may be developed in a variety of ways, using diverse language skills and a range of techniques (see Section 3, below for more detail). The crucial point here is that the attention of the learners should be drawn to the language that emerges in the course of the lesson. In other words, the teacher should mediate the learning process through scaffolding. That is, by reinforcing and refining the learners’ efforts to engage with the emergent language, the teacher helps them to gain competence, until they no longer require support here, but may be encouraged to engage with more challenging language, again assisted by scaffolding (Thornbury, 2005; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). Having outlined the core principles of Dogme ELT, the question arises as to how teachers may scaffold the language which emerges, in practice, in an unplugged classroom.
3.
Dogme ELT in Practice
For language teachers who are used to planning lessons in advance and to relying upon coursebooks and/or other materials, the idea of stepping into a classroom with only the germ of an idea to stimulate conversation may seem like a leap into the unknown. Moreover, some may question their own capacity to react immediately and effectively to the language which emerges there. Nonetheless, guidance for the novice Dogme practitioner is available in various forms: reflective accounts of unplugged lessons are regularly published online by teachers working in various parts of the world (see Appendix 1 for a list of blogs); video recordings of seminars about Dogme ELT are also available online (Meddings, 2011); and a bank of starter activities and strategies is presented in Teaching Unplugged (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). Elsewhere, Thornbury and Meddings describe how a teacher might use the language which emerges in an unplugged classroom to generate learning: The important thing ... is to capture text, whether sentences, bits of talk or whole conversations, and then put this captured text to work, improving it, rehearsing it, performing it, re-formulating it in another mode (speech to writing, or writing to speech) or register (formal, public or informal, private). And there must be some focused attention on the language – but not just on the weaknesses, also on the strengths. And there must be some kind of summarising activity, for the record. This is what is meant by a reactive focus on learner language – one in which the learners’ language is as much the process as the product of instruction” (2001). Thus, although a Dogme ELT lesson requires little pre-planning or preparation, beyond the selection of a stimulus to get the conversation started, considerable effort is required on the part of the teacher during the lesson itself. The teacher in a Dogme classroom must be able to “capture” emergent language and use it to create learning opportunities, either by scaffolding it immediately, or by noting it for retrieval later in the lesson. In other words, the teacher must ensure that features or patterns of emergent language are noticed,
repeated, refined, recorded, reworked, recycled, reviewed and gradually assimilated by the learners (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). In working with the emergent language, any of the techniques used in the conventional ELT classroom may be employed, as appropriate: pair work, group work, drills, role play, brainstorming, grammar clarification, etc. Effective use of the board by the teacher is particularly important in terms of helping learners to focus upon emergent language. It is worth noting that, although the teacher will be proactive in scaffolding emergent language, the interactive nature of the Dogme classroom means that learners may also scaffold language for their peers (Donato, 1994). Dogme ELT also demands considerable flexibility on the part of the teacher, in terms of being able to generate appropriate activities spontaneously, as language emerges during a lesson; of being able to change track quickly should an activity fail to engage interest; of being able to “go with the flow” should the conversation move in an unexpected direction; and of being able to direct the language learning process along more challenging lines where appropriate (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). Finally, the unplugged classroom presupposes a social environment conducive to conversation. The teacher must help to facilitate this, by being a friendly, interested, encouraging, and above all supportive participant in the dialogue which occurs.
4.
Dogme ELT and Educational Theory
While some critics of Dogme ELT have suggested that it lacks a solid theoretical basis, its proponents argue otherwise, claiming that the approach may be validated with reference to communicative approaches to language learning; emergent systems theory; sociocultural theory; and humanistic educational theory, including theories of learner autonomy, identity and motivation (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009; Harmer, 2010; Thornbury 2012). Although it dismisses “communicative” coursebooks as an impediment to real communication, the principle that Dogme ELT should be conversation-driven is entirely consistent with the theories which gave rise to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and its derivative Task-Based Learning (TBL) in the 1970s and 1980s, namely that language learning is best achieved through authentic communication in the target language, and that formal linguistic proficiency emerges out of communicative competence (Nunan, 1991; J.C. Richards, 2004). However, whereas in TBL, the communicative interaction required to complete a task is believed to facilitate language learning, Dogme ELT asserts that the language which emerges in normal conversation about matters of interest to the participants provides sufficient opportunity for language development (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). The central place which Dogme ELT gives to conversation relevant to the lives of the learners reflects the pedagogical theory of Paulo Freire, who contended that the needs and concerns of learners should shape the education process, and that this new content would emerge out of dialogue: “Education is communication and dialogue. It is not the transference of knowledge” (Freire, cited in Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p.7). Thus, learners become agents in their own education.
The degree of agency given to learners in Dogme ELT, evidenced in the extent to which content is personalised in the unplugged classroom, may also be related to theories of motivation and identity. Van Lier (2007) asserts that learning a second language “involves a struggle to forge a new identity that is true to the self” (p.47 ) and that this process demands “personal investment and engagement, things to do that make sense, and ways of doing them that are challenging, interesting, supported and satisfying” (p. 62). The fact that content in the unplugged classroom derives principally from the real lives of the learners means that interaction in the Dogme classroom is oriented to the transportable identities of the participants, that is to identities that are “assignable or claimable on the basis of physical or culturally based insignia” (Zimmerman, cited in K. Richards, 2006, p. 15), rather than to situated identities as teacher and student. Richards has shown that interaction oriented towards their transportable identities increases the engagement and involvement of learners in L2 interaction (K. Richards, 2006). In other words, real conversation, which is of its nature “true to the self” of the learners, enhances their intrinsic motivation to learn the language. The granting of agency to learners does not remove the need for support. The language which emerges in the Dogme classroom is scaffolded by the teacher, enabling the learners to develop communicative competence in the foreign language. Thus, the dialogic, interactive nature of conversation provides a framework within which learning may be jointly constructed by the teacher and learners. The teacher does not front classroom talk in the L2 but, rather, assists its development. This approach has its roots in the sociocultural theory propounded by Lev Vygotsky, who asserted that all cognitive development stems from social interaction. During dialogic interaction, the more knowledgeable participant guides and shapes the behaviour of the less experienced individual until the latter internalises the new processes and assistance is no longer required (Vygotsky cited in Donato, 1994). The term “scaffolding” was first applied to this process by Bruner in L1 research, and eventually also used in relation to L2 learning (Donato, 1994). Meddings and Thornbury have suggested that the Dogme approach to ELT may also be validated with reference to emergent systems theory (2009). Emergent systems theory, the idea that multiple interactions between many simpler systems give rise to more complex systems whose emergent properties may not be predictable from the original components, has recently been applied to the study of language (Ellis, Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). It is suggested that the development of language, including the internal language system - interlanguage - of the L2 learner, is an emergent phenomenon: “learning is a nonlinear process that emerges in often unpredictable ways from meaningful activity in the L2” (Larsen-Freeman, cited in van Lier, 2007, p. 46); “Changes in the system are engendered by agents’ adaptation to their environment (van Lier 2004), often including the reciprocal feedback that they receive as a result of their joint activities” (Ellis & LarsenFreeman, 2006, p.576). Thus, every episode of dialogic interaction between the participants in a Dogme classroom exposes the learners to the sound and sequence patterns of the target language. Assisted by feedback, in the form of the scaffolding provided by the teacher and fellow learners, the learners’ interlanguage systems come to recognise, associate and assimilate these patterns. These processes culminate in the emergence and use of language at a new and sometimes unexpected level of complexity (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009)
5.
The Dogme Debate
While supporters of Dogme ELT assert that teaching unplugged is liberating and productive in terms of language development, a number of criticisms of the approach have been made online, in print and at conferences. Amongst other things, Dogme ELT has been labelled bad teaching, lazy teaching, even “winging it elevated to an art form” (Meddings & Thornbury, 2003). Criticisms include the apparent lack of structure in a Dogme ELT classroom; the contention that conversation may end up being directed by the teacher; the assertion that outright rejection of good materials means denying yourself a potentially valuable resource; and a reminder that in some parts of the world teachers and students may only dream of being in the position of having materials to reject (Gill, 2003; Wade, 2005). Questions raised include whether the Dogme approach is suitable for: beginners and low-level learners, who have little or no L2 to work with; young learners; very large classes, which may be difficult to manage along Dogme lines, and where it may be difficult to cater to the needs and desires of so many different students; one-to-one teaching; exam classes, which will be tested against a set syllabus; classes of monolingual learners, who may be tempted to converse in L1; shy students, who may feel less exposed using a coursebook; English for special purposes classes, in which specific lexical areas must be covered; and likewise, university classes; institutions which insist upon the use of a coursebook; traditionalist and/or non-Eurocentric contexts, where students (or their parents) may expect coursebooks to be used; and lessons taught by inexperienced or nonnative English teachers, who may feel threatened by the unpredictability inherent in teaching (Gill, 2003; McCabe, 2005; Wade, 2009; Harmer, 2010; Harmer, 2012) On a practical level, Meddings and Thornbury and other supporters of Dogme ELT argue that the experiences of people teaching unplugged in various parts of the world have given positive answers to most of the questions raised above; they also offer guidance, based upon these experiences, for would-be Dogme practitioners who find themselves in similar situations (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009; Wade, 2012) (see also the weblogs listed in Appendix 1). In response to the criticism that Dogme ELT is not well-grounded in theory, it is claimed that humanistic educational theories, communicative approaches to language teaching and contemporary research into the development of language as an emergent system all help to validate the approach (as discussed in Section 4 above).
6.
Research into Dogme ELT
Given the ongoing debate about Dogme ELT, it would be useful to supplement the available anecdotal evidence and reflective accounts of teaching unplugged with more rigorous academic research directed specifically at the approach, its outcomes and the issues raised by critics. Thornbury himself has acknowledged this argument, and taken action accordingly. Thus, a collection of research papers, Researching Dogme, is scheduled for publication in 2014 (Thornbury, 2011). The collection is expected to include research in the areas of “curriculum negotiation, course design, reactive teaching, classroom interaction, learner and teacher autonomy, teacher education, motivation and other affective factors, language emergence, ESP, critical pedagogy and situated learning,” using
a variety of research methodologies, including “action research, interaction analysis, ethnographic and narrative enquiry, and curriculum evaluation” (Thornbury, 2011). The emphasis upon qualitative research methodologies here is consistent with LarsenFreeman’s argument that the understanding of the development of language as a complex system is better served “by studying real people in their human contexts and interactions, rather than aggregating and averaging across individuals as happens in experimental and quantitative studies” (2008, p. 206). The eventual publication of Researching Dogme may provide answers to some of the questions surrounding teaching unplugged, and therefore help to validate the approach. On the other hand, it will no doubt also raise new questions, thereby stimulating further research. Most importantly, the ultimate value of this type of academic research will be determined by the extent to which its outcomes are relayed back to teachers and teacher trainees, and thus into the practice of teaching itself.
7.
Dogme ELT in Turkey
Here in Turkey, in the state education sector at least, the concept of Dogme ELT is generally unfamiliar. The ultimate goal of English teachers working in the state system is to enable pupils to achieve success in the foreign language component of the Turkish University Entrance Examination, a multiple choice test which measures the candidates’ grammatical and lexical knowledge, and their reading comprehension and translation skills. The knock-on effect of this is that, in English Language Departments or on English Language courses at state universities, many students lack English speaking skills, or lack confidence in their ability to speak English. On the other hand, in the private sector, which is able to devote more resources to ELT, teachers aim to promote a high level of communicative proficiency in their students, as well the ability to pass examinations. Kavanoz has reported that for state school teachers in Turkey, “learner-centredness” means making the students active by having them do grammar-focused exercises with worksheets, whereas private school teachers define the concept as learning by doing (Kavanoz, cited in European Commission, 2006). Thus, one would expect the private sector to be more proactive than the state sector, in terms of trying to understand and to engage with such a radical communicative approach to teaching English as Dogme. Indeed this proves to be the case at primary, secondary and tertiary levels in the private sector, as well as in private language schools, based upon evidence from blogs and conferences that Dogme ELT is being experimented with and discussed in these spheres. Thus, there might be scope for academic research to be carried out in relation to the development of Dogme ELT in this arena. At every level of the state ELT sector in Turkey, issues arise which might seem to obviate against experimenting with Dogme ELT: large class sizes; exam pressures; traditionalist expectations about course delivery, design and the use of materials; and teachers whose own communicative skills in English may fall some way short of their grammatical and lexical competence. On the other hand, the poor rank achieved by Turkey, 43rd out of 44 countries, in the EF English Proficiency Index (Education First, 2011) suggests that a change of approach in the teaching of English may be warranted here. This is not to suggest that the state sector in Turkey should switch to Dogme overnight, but rather that action research into Dogme might be carried out by suitably trained teachers in local contexts at primary, secondary and tertiary levels, with potential for feedback into national
or international academic research projects, such as Researching Dogme, and ultimately into planning for the future of ELT in the Turkish state sector.
8.
Conclusions
This paper has described the concept and theoretical bases of Dogme ELT, outlined its core principles, highlighted some of the questions raised by critics, and noted that there is currently a lack of academic research to validate anecdotal and reflective accounts of the approach in practice. It concluded by noting that Dogme has made some inroads into the private ELT sector in Turkey, but that the status quo in the state sector makes it appear to be an unlikely candidate for experiments with teaching unplugged. Nonetheless, the paper recommends that the presence in the state sector of many of the elements which critics of the approach highlight as problematic for Dogme ELT, such as large classes; exam pressures; traditionalist expectations; and teachers who may be insecure about their own communication skills in English, might make it a fruitful field for research into the feasibility and impact of applying a Dogme approach under such conditions.
References Allwright, R.L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal, 36(1), 5-18. Donato, R. (1994). collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Education First, (2011). EF EPI English proficiency index. Retrieved 20th April, 2012 from http://www.ef.com.tr/sitecore/__/~/media/efcom/epi/pdf/EF-EPI-2011.pdf Ellis, N.C. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: implications for applied linguistics – introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27(4), 558589. European Commission. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 Study: Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. Gill, S. (2003). Against dogma: a plea for moderation. IATEFL Issues, 154. Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English Language Teaching: Language in Action. Abingdon: Routledge. Harmer, J. (13th October, 2010) No dogma for EFL – away from a pedagogy of essential bareness. Messages posted to http://jeremyharmer.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/no-dogmafor-efl-away-from-a-pedagogy-of-essential-bareness/ Harmer, J. (2012). Teaching unplugged beats acquisition? [Video file]. Retrieved 23rd March 2012, from http://ihworld.com/video/jeremy_harmer
Larsen-Freeman, D & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective.The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. McCabe, D. (2005). Online forum report. Dogme. ELT Journal, 59(4), 333-335. Meddings, L. (2011). Twenty steps to teaching unplugged. [Video file]. Retrieved 23rd March 2012, from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/seminars/20-steps-teachingunplugged Meddings, L. (2012). 3-2-1 a classroom for everyone. [Video file]. Retrieved 23rd March 2012, from http://ihworld.com/video/luke_meddings_3_2_1_a_classroom_for_everyone1 Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2003). Dogme still able to divide ELT. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 23rd March, 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/17/tefl.lukemeddings?INTCMP=ILCNETT XT3487 Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching Unplugged. Surrey: Delta Publishing. Richards, J. C. (2004). Communicative language teaching today. Guidelines. 26(2), 3-10. Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, K. (2006). Being the teacher: identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 51-77. Sketchley, M. (2011). An investigation into teacher and student attitudes of the key tenets of Dogme ELT. [MA dissertation]. Retrieved 12th March, 2012 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/83684117/Dogme-ELT-Dissertation-Final-Version Thornbury, S. (2000). A Dogma for EFL. IATEFL Issues, 153(2), 2. Thornbury, S. (7th May, 2001a). Another forum. Message posted to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/message/615 Thornbury, S. (2001b). Teaching Unplugged. It’s for Teachers. Thornbury, S. (2005). Dogme: dancing in the dark? Folio 9(2), 3-5. Thornbury, S. (19th, October, 2011). Here’s a thought: Dogme research papers. Message posted to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/message/16697
Thornbury, S. (2012). Teaching unplugged: autonomy in action? [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved 5th April, 2012 from http://www.thornburyscott.com/st_2.htm Thornbury, S. & Meddings, L. (2001). Using the raw materials: a “dogme” approach to teaching language. Modern English Teacher, 10(4), 40-43. Van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46-65. Von Trier, L. & Vinterberg, T. (2005). Dogme 95: the vow of chastity. In A. Utterson (Ed.) Technology and culture, the film reader (pp. 87-88). Abingdon: Routledge. Wade, P. (2012). EFL experiment 2: the ultimate Dogme criticisms and responses. [Web log post]. Retrieved 2nd March, 2012 from http://eflthoughtsandreflections.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/efl-experiment-2-the-ultimatedogme-criticisms-and-responses/#comment-299
APPENDIX 1 Some Blogs Concerned with Dogme ELT An Experiment with Dogme: http://olibeddall.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/dogmecookbook/ Chiasuanchong: http://chiasuanchong.wordpress.com Classrooms on the Danube: http://markandrews.edublogs.org/tag/dogme/ EFL Thoughts and Reflections: http://eflthoughtsandreflections.wordpress.com/category/dogme/ ELT Experiences: http://www.eltexperiences.com/search/label/Dogme ELT Reflections: http://eltreflection.wordpress.com/ English Raven: http://jasonrenshaw.typepad.com/jason_renshaws_web_log/the-road-toteaching-unplugged-ongoing-archive.html fiveagainstone: http://fiveagainstone.wordpress.com/?s=dogme&submit=Search Kalinago English: http://kalinago.blogspot.com/ languagemoments: http://languagemoments.wordpress.com/?s=dogme onefortywords: http://lukemeddings.wordpress.com/ Reflective Teaching: http://alastairjamesgrant.wordpress.com Teacher Training Unplugged: http://teachertrainingunplugged.wordpress.com/ Teaching Unplugged: http://www.thornburyscott.com/tu/portal.htm The Dogme Diaries: http://dogmediaries.wordpress.com/ The Unplugged Index: http://lukemeddings.posterous.com/ Turkish TEFL: http://turklishtefl.com/?s=dogme Unplugged Reflections: http://unpluggedreflections.wordpress.com/delta-experimentalpractice/
