but wouldn’t:

“Learners should engage content to enable learning”

be more appropriate when discussing technology and dogme? After all, dogme is about using what lies within learners and building knowledge collaboratively by participating in making relationships. Part of this must include the relationship with technology, as in WE control the technology, not it controls us. Web 2.0 is about user generated content, so by definition content is a user specified thing – and why would a user choose something that they couldnt engage with? Technology as a teacher tool only works if learners can see it as a tool too – so why not let them choose it and how to use it.

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?

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.

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…)

The book does seem to be growing in popularity. I’m surprised to learn that some people have such a hard time getting their hands on it though.

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.