Is to too early to claim Dogme has staying power? If not, then this may be attributed to it’s non-method status, ie lack of a ‘codified set of practices’. Quite simply, Dogme emerges/is emerging much as does grammar (depending on one’s view of SLA).

Therefore, it seems of the utmost importance that Dogme remain adaptable. I was apprehensive about the Teaching Unplugged book, fearing that it might solidify and ‘dogma-tize’ what has always been somewhat of a public good or renewable resource. Having read the book, I am relieved to see that Scott and Luke have managed to keep the ‘long conversation’ alive.

First of all, congratulations to Luke and Scott for writing this book, and hearty thanks to Delta Publishing for putting their support behind it. I recently wrote a review of “Teaching Unplugged” in which I suggested: “the very existence of such a book begs the question: how would current teacher training and notions of good teaching practice need to change in order to make Teaching Unplugged the norm rather than the exception?” For me, the question of whether Dogme has “staying power” is bound up with this question of its ability to find a place in initial teacher training. We know old habits are hard to break, and this applies to habits of mind (i.e. attitudes) as well. To make a significant impact on the teachers of tomorrow, Dogme principles and practice need to become more strongly embedded within initial training courses: without this, the hegemony of materials-driven teaching will continue, with Dogme continuing to be seen as a radical (chic) alternative practised by non-conformist experienced teachers. I’m being deliberately provocative here but would like to know what other readers think in response.

I’d say you certainly count, Rob. My colleagues and I are overhauling our initial teacher training course to take more account of dogme principles. We are also taking more account of them while conducting in-house teacher observations. This is very exciting and daunting at the same time: I’ll keep you posted. I’m not sure what a “full-on dogme course” would look like yet, but I’d love to find out. I’ll get back in touch when I’ve got some ideas together. Meanwhile, hope you enjoy the other posting “where’s your evidence?” – just skimmed it and found it interesting!

The dogme idea is great but what is new about it? There have been many people promoting the idea of ‘using the participants as a resource’ going right back to John Heron (Human Potential Research Project, Surrey Univ. 1973) and others like Adrian Underhill who took his ideas forward. I feel that Scott Thornbury and Luke Meddings have picked up on these ideas and now, thanks to the internet, have been able to create a ‘discourse community’ around their spin on established ideas which is now going into a book. I hope they will share the royalties with their faithful followers!

Responding to James and Dennis:

James – as far as I can tell, the Dogme online community created itself (rather than Meddings and Thornbury creating it). Thornbury just wrote an article which galvanised people internationally (in a way that earlier advocates for materials-light, conversation-driven and affordance-oriented teaching also sought to do). The only differences are that Internet technology and positive advocacy have allowed the message to become influential enough to leverage a broad publication. As a(n) (albeit minor) contributor to this discourse, do I feel exploited and in need of a royalty share? Grow up. There are bigger things to worry about, honestly. I’m happy that Meddings and Thornbuty have put the time in to persuading a publisher to give widespread voice to my concerns, and to put the effort into articulating it better than I could, and providing me with a simple to reference resource full of ideas in line with my thinking – far from feeling exploited, I’d say it’s a bargain.

Dennis – I understand your point but what is the consequence? That Dogme should ignore its self-evident origin as a political movement (in the “lower-case” sense of political as an socially motivated attempt to influence the status quo)? Engaging in the Socratic exchange that you present is fine, but surely there is something more judgmental at the heart of Dogme? Being provocative again (just tell me to get back in my box if need be…)

Going back to Scott’s original point about “Luddites”, I think a lot of teachers do resist technological innovation, and with good reason. Getting familiar with new technology requires access to the equipment and plenty of free time to figure out how it works. Lots of teachers lack one or both of those resources. Other teachers simply aren’t particularly interested – their minds don’t work that way. And fair enough. Nobody would suggest that such people can’t teach just as effectively as their geekier colleagues.

So I hope discussions about involving IT in the Dogme approach won’t appear to newcomers to be a main issue. That might put some off, and that would be a shame.

I decided to try out some of the activities described in Teaching Unplugged, with my classes this year and would like to share some of my experiences from a practical point of view.

The My Name activity has been very productive with my intermediate/ upper intermediate learners and really got the introductory sessions off to a good start. I used My English in the same sessions, and this, too was well received-although students tended to fall back on learned responses to the ‘it helps when…’ part of the task.

I noticed that, when I passed around specimen copies of a course textbook that I wanted to get their reactions to (New English File), instead of staying with me on the contents pages (I have hopes of involving in actively planning their own learning) they all turned to lesson 1 and started the first exercise-clinging to the textbook like it was a life raft.

I think we have to take into consideration the average student’s degree of ‘institutionalization’; schooled in a passive receptor mode, the active participation demanded by dogme technique can be a big ask.

Has anyone else noticed this?

I went to one of Luke’s presentations (in Scotland) of this book and the thinking behind it…

It was an epiphany!!! For the FIRST time in my life, having attended course after course in which it was hammered in my head that what I was doing in my language classes was all wrong, that I had to have lesson plans tattooed on the back of my hand, and that structure is everything… for the FIRST time, someone (and not just anyone, but Scott Thornbury & friends;)) was offering to the world what I believed in as a teaching theory, practice and, even better, movement!!!

Was I asleep for the last 10yrs?? Maybe so, but so were (and are) most teaching-training practitioners

Thank you Scott & Luke
Barbara