Sara, I imagine one could edit the Dogme discussion list into a sort of ‘data set’ of multiple perspectives including criticism and concrete examples of ‘how it works’ in various contexts. It’s only a matter of mining the archives.

On to read the Robinson Crusoe debate…

Sliman, A. (1989) The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17.

Some interesting points for me to consider as a teacher (be that a non-Dogme one) and an interesting comment from Rob, too.

I have liked and admired the ideas and ideals behind the Dogme “movement” from afar for some time now. I can definitely recognise that many of my most enjoyable teaching moments have been the completely unplanned discussions that have morphed into an entire lesson driven by the interests and needs of the students. Dogme it may well not have been, but there was something electric there.

I’ll admit that “evidence” that something works, or doesn’t work is of no real interest to me at this point in time. I prefer to try something out and “feel” if it seems right or wrong. Personally speaking I think digging one’s heels in for any particular methodology is not going to help teachers in general and, more importantly, students in the long run. Nevertheless, I follow the threads of this and other discussions going on around the eflblogosphere with interest right now.

This is especially so, as I am in a phase of non-textbook teaching at the moment (have stopped my teaching job at a language school to work at a state school on a really interesting programme.) Personally speaking I still would feel uncomfortable to go into the class with nothing in my head, or in my hand… guess I should follow the Dogme list to see if there are ideas there that might inspire.

I wonder what Rob means by “atomistic testing methods” could that be Cambridge ESOL et al, or does he mean the tests used to evaluate the efficacy of Dogme? I’ll grant that I’ve had my problems with the whole KET – CPE ladder in the past. Feels a little like hoop jumping to me.

Well for now I shall remain happily interacting with my students in the (non-Dogme) way I have been enjoying up till now. If nothing else your points and the general discussion going on around these issues has given me pause for thought, which can never be a bad thing.

Thanks,

Seth.

(And from out-of-work coursebook writers?)

For any theory or approach in language teaching or elsewhere to be meaningful for all those who feel it is worth its salt, it needs to be explored more closely in different contexts and situations. Not just from a “how we do it” point of view, or a “why do it?” but also from a “does it work?” point of view – this means exploring when it doesn’t and seeing that data set as just as valuable as when it does work. What Scott has outlined above is how existing areas of ELT might help in a better understanding of DOGME – and he has flagged up here that it would be good to develop focused DOGME research with a more ethnographic focus – what Rob seems to suggest is that it is hard to “prove” its success if people think of research in simplistic terms i.e. scientifically provable data. Well that is true in all areas of ELT, and certainly it is still the case that new types to research are difficult to implement, but certainly not impossible anymore. What I would like to see, personally, as someone interested in different approaches to teaching and also in research, is a collection of perspectives from different localities and contexts which talk about how DOGME has been incorporated into their teaching/learning, and asking questions about how DOGME fits into their overall teaching framework. The most productive way to do this would *not* be to take the quantitative “let’s see if we can replicate this approach exactly in XXX different contexts” as this is bound to produce over-simplistic results which will not get to the nuances of the way things work or don’t work. It would be much better to try looking at situations in different countries/contexts and allow the local researcher to decide on what aspect of DOGME they want to draw out in their research. There is plenty of this sort of research going on in ELT these days so its not that unusual and its aim is depth and exploring contradiction rather than producing nice, neat results that can be squeezed into a pie chart here or a graph there.The point is not to produce the final word on something, but to see it as an ongoing project that will always produce new findings. Learner and teacher attitudes would be captured in this way, as well as perspectives of other people/processes involved offering valuable classroom and non-classroom points of view.

Scott, in your IATEFL Online Interview, you say that you see yourself as a mediator between the academic and teaching world. That you try to make theories simpler for teachers to understand (I am paraphrasing here and hope I am reflecting what you wanted to convey). I wish that we didn’t have to see the link between research and practice as such a top down affair – but unfortunately you are right in the sense that classroom teachers don’t always see how research is relevant to them and sometimes academics lose sight of what it means to be in the classroom. But the thing is that we *need* both and I see no reason why we cannot wear different hats by being both teachers and researchers. So, now that the practical “how to” materials are out there and in circulation, it seems that the missing link is exploring this a bit more and bringing it together in a way that enables people to puzzle over the different parts of the jigsaw that is DOGME, from multi-perspectives, including helpfully critical voices that might identify its gaps. As I said, a nice edited collection from different authors would be a helpful addition at this stage.

Sara – Greece