Introduction Why this book? The idea for this book originated during a workshop. A group of teachers were lamenting about the absence of a one-stop resource which covered a variety of contemporary approaches, techniques and methods for teachers wanting to experiment in the classroom. Instead of continuing to gripe, we decided to put our 26 years of ELT experience together to write this book. Who is this book for? Whether you are a new or experienced teacher, this book gives you five ways to experiment with your teaching. You may want to get out of a teaching rut, develop professionally, solve old problems with new solutions, or even just shake things up. For candiates doing the Cambridge DELTA, this book can be used to guide your Experimental Practice assignment and help you address the unique challenges and opportunities that each selection in this book provides. What is experimental practice? Also known as exploratory teaching or action research, experimental practice (referred to as EP in this book) is simply trying out something new for you as a teacher, and then evaluating what transpired afterwards. What special features does this book have? To get the most out of this book, go to the chapter that most interests you. Each chapter follows the same format with both theory and practical classroom application. Each chapter consists of: 1. History & Background 2. Experimental Practice
3. Sample Lesson Plan 4. Lesson Principles 5. Opportunities 6. Risks 7. Dos and Don’ts 8. Toolbox Why these five chapters? We surveyed Cambridge DELTA tutors in Europe, asking them about the Experimental Practice assignment in DELTA Module 2, and the choices their diploma candidates made. The top 5 experimental practice topics from the results (see charts below) were selected for this book. Alternative historical approaches such as Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response and the Silent Way were not picked as we felt these already had sufficient resources.
Fig. 1 DELTA candidates’ choices
Fig. 2 DELTA tutors’ recommendations
Now, let’s set out on an EP journey – take a Walk On The Wild Side with us!
Dogme History & Background When Scott Thornbury was first inspired by the film director Lars von Trier in 2000, he was presumably unaware of the revolution and debate he would start in ELT. The Dogme movement initially took its core ideas from Lars von Trier’s "Dogme 95 manifesto" which vowed to move towards traditional filmmaking without the use of special effects or props. Thornbury's creation of his own vows of EFL chastity came from witnessing a dependency on materials as a teacher-‐trainer. As a result, the movement began as a way to wage “war on material driven lessons” (Thornbury, 2000). Luke Meddings is another founder of the Dogme ELT movement and after nine years of articles, talks, and Yahoo! Group discussion, Meddings and Thornbury published Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching. The book contains a description of Dogme principles as well as activities and considerations for applying Dogme to the classroom. In Teaching Unplugged, the basic principles of Dogme ELT are outlined: •
Interactivity between the teacher and learners leads to co-construction of knowledge.
•
The most engaging material will come from the learners themselves.
•
Language is not acquired. It emerges organically given the right conditions.
•
If materials are used, they should have relevance for the learners.
•
The teacher’s role is to draw attention to features of emergent language and “optimize learning affordances.” adapted from (Meddings and Thornbury 2009, p.7) The principles of Dogme are not revolutionary in and of themselves. Thornbury
plainly admits this, saying: “There’s nothing very original in Dogme” (Thornbury 2005, p.3). It has roots in humanistic education, the communicative approach, critical pedagogy, and other materials-‐light approaches. It also ties in with motivational factors discussed by Dörnyei (2001, p. 35), who advises teachers to “let [learners] know they are expected to be curious” to increase motivation. Although the ideas of Dogme may not be new, giving a name to this approach to teaching has helped create a community of ‘Dogmeticians.’ This
does not mean that they teach exclusively in Dogme style, but they do recognise the value of consciously integrating the approach’s principles into their teaching.
Experimental Practice Dogme is considered a natural choice for experimental practice. It appeals to teachers who wish to sever their dependency on materials, and those without access to materials or resources due to technical limitations or financial restraints. The ultimate experimental practice for those who feel they are constantly at the photocopier, frequently relying on technology during class or relentlessly handing out materials. For even the most experienced, qualified or skilled teacher, Dogme can be a challenge. Some find the experience exciting, thrilling and risky, the equivalent of throwing away the rule book. Others feel it successfully develops teaching skills, fostering observation skills and the ability to rapidly respond to emerging learner needs. The popularity of Dogme for experimental practice is further enhanced by the buzz around the movement. Since its inception, Dogme has attracted the interest of the entire ELT field and has been both praised and criticised. Many say it allows learners to experience “language and learning in a profoundly human way” (Meddings and Thornbury 2003) while others lambast Dogme as “winging it elevated to an art form” (Ibid 2003). From both sides, however, the buzz is not fading. Dogme has maintained its vigour with years of articles, talks, Yahoo! Group discussions, blog posts, tweets, a wiki entry and a book. Rebels love it, financially strapped teachers adopt it, and those with a hatred of coursebooks embrace it. Dogme came first in our survey of DELTA tutors as the most common choice for the DELTA EP assignment by candidates. To be a valid choice for the EP assignment however, the candidate must not have previously experimented with Dogme. Although all DELTA candidates have doubtlessly already taught unplanned lessons or lessons which are materials-‐light, the rationale and research behind preparing a Dogme lesson differentiates it from simple improvisation. True experimentation with Dogme allows teachers to thoroughly evaluate and reflect on their teaching, giving the DELTA candidate a substantial amount of material to assess and discuss. As Thornbury himself stated in 2010 when asked about the appropriateness of Dogme for the DELTA EP assignment: “[Dogme] certainly qualifies as
experimental given the current state of orthodoxy is to work safely within the materials paradigm,” (Thornbury, 2010).
Sample Lesson Plan Note: The unpredictable nature of Dogme means that no single outline would accurately reflect the diversity and choice within a “typical” Dogme lesson. Rather than provide a linear outline, a flow chart representing the numerous choices available has been provided.
Lesson Principles In Teaching Unplugged, Meddings and Thornbury qualify Dogme ELT as being “conversation-‐driven, materials-‐light, and focus[ed] on emergent language” (2009:8). This does not mean Dogme rejects the use of materials. It simply means the direction of the lesson is determined by what emerges in conversation between the teacher and the learners. As seen in the flow chart of the sample lesson, these conversations could also take place between learners, with the teacher acting as a facilitator, helping learners to
reformulate and express ideas clearly, and drawing attention to relevant linguistic points. In Dogme, the language that emerges from the learners, guides the lesson. The various roles of the teacher and learners, as well as how working on emergent language shapes the lesson can be found throughout the flow chart. Note that although the starting point of the flow chart does not include materials, Dogme does not have to be materials-‐less. Materials that are relevant to learners’ lives will encourage dialogic learning, which is vital to Dogme. Dialogic learning can be defined as “that in which both teachers and pupils make substantial and significant contributions and through which pupils’ thinking on a given idea or theme is helped to move forward,” (Mercer, 2003). Thus, relevant materials could be introduced during this opening stage. In the opening stages, the lesson is based around conversation. The teacher initiates a conversation, materials-‐mediated or not. If learners have something interesting to share, the teacher can encourage the discussion to develop, listening carefully, but stepping aside to allow learners to talk. The teacher helps as needed to scaffold the discussion. If, however, learners are less forthcoming the teacher may build on whatever is provided by learners. To try to spark a discussion among learners, the teacher can directly ask a question related to the topic, such as but not limited to “What’s the most…you’ve ever …?”, “What would you do if…?”, “What kinds of… do you…?” (i.e. “What kinds of dishes do you like to cook?”, “What kinds of problems do you have with your neighbors?”, etc.) Aim for open questions, which are more likely to generate conversation. As Meddings and Thornbury (2009, p. 35) point out: “Asking the right questions can help to nudge the conversation into new directions, and this will encourage people to extend their language use.” Another alternative to encouraging participation from hesitant learners is to get them working on language earlier in the lesson as indicated by the light blue box on the right of the flow chart. Some learner groups may feel more comfortable working from a structured activity towards discussion as they ‘warm up’ to the session. However, this activity should be built on the conversation that has already begun. It may be a dictogloss, as presented in the flow chart, but could also include creating a questionnaire, having students try to note new words they heard in your story, etc. The idea is to set a task which will allow the teacher and learners to notice gaps in their interlanguage. This will provide material for the subsequent parts of the chart in which the teacher takes the opportunity to extend learners’ language.
Learners may then begin asking questions about the language being worked on. Sometimes their inquiries have nothing to do with the language at hand, in which case the teacher may opt to respond briefly and respond more in depth in a future lesson (see the light pink box on the flow chart). This is especially useful if the teacher does not feel they can provide an adequate answer on the spot. According to Bill Trusten of the USC Center for Excellence in Teaching, this honesty “will also make students feel comfortable about speaking when they don’t know the entire answer.” If, however, the teacher feels comfortable addressing the inquiry at that moment, the language can be integrated into the lesson. At this point the teacher, ideally together with the learners, begins imagining an activity practice the language that has emerged; perhaps a theme will also have emerged. Meddings and Thornbury remind teachers that “paying close attention to details of form will build confidence in your unplugged approach.” Activities will necessarily be material-‐less because they are included as the situation demands. Thus role plays, peer-‐created exercises, word-‐mapping activities, story creation, substitution tables, performing tasks, etc. are all suitable. On the left side of the chart, we imagine a class where the learners are more forthcoming with language. In this case, the teacher has a few options on how to deal with learner output: begin focusing on the language to scaffold conversation, let the discussion run and do delayed correction, or identify a theme on which to build the lesson. Again, these stages will allow the teacher to identify and address learner difficulties and also respond to learners’ questions about language and subsequently decide on ways to re-‐work the target language, as teachers should not forget that they should always “aim to do something with the language that emerges in class,” (Meddings and Thornbury, 2009: p. 60). At the end of the lesson, after the tasks have been completed, it is important to allow time for learners to reflect on what happened and what has been learned (see yellow boxes in flow chart). This helps them see how the seemingly “unpreparedness” of Dogme indeed leads to learning opportunities. It also allows time for the teacher to record what happened, what language was addressed, and make notes to ensure continuity between lessons. Before ending, the teacher and learners can discuss where to go next in the program. This is also the opportunity to invite learners to bring materials and ideas for the following lesson. As Nunan (1988: p. 20) states: “Important in planning, presenting, and evaluating outcomes will be joint consultation and negotiation between teachers and
learners.” This joint decision-‐making gives learners an active role in building the course, often leading to higher motivation and investment.
Opportunities •
Discourages a dependency on resources, props and technology; unplugs by using the learner as a resource
•
Enables successful “tuning in” to learners; avoids rigid lesson plan adherence
•
Provides opportunities for creative learner engagement; uses various stimuli to initiate learner talk (images, drawings, stories or props within the classroom)
•
Focuses teachers on exploiting language which arises; shapes emergent language through scaffolding
•
Offers learners more responsibility over classroom content; furnishes learners with a valid voice
•
Develops teaching skills for coping with the unknown; empowers teachers and boosts confidence
•
Increases conviviality in longer Dogme courses; increases participation and enhances rapport (Rebuffet-Broadus 2013)
•
Drives teachers to discover their limits; exposes future professional development opportunities
•
Enhances material evaluation through objective criticism; discourages blind obedience to text books
•
Stimulates spontaneity through interactivity; engages and inspires learners and teachers without materials
Risks •
Failing to explicitly describe the rationale behind Dogme; misunderstandings caused by vague or unclear explanations
•
Assuming learners can co-construct lessons; those not used to being solicited may not respond or participate
•
Struggling with learner expectations; anticipating materials (handouts, videos, texts, etc.) and coping with ‘unconventional’ teaching
•
Not giving Dogme enough time; having to attempt several sessions before learners take the initiative
•
Interpreting Dogme as laziness or indifference; learner motivation issues due to the teacher’s apparent apathy for preparation
•
Failing to exploit emergent language; conversation classes without direction or content
•
Experiencing awkward silences during class; uncomfortable non-‐teaching moments which encourage negative backwash
•
Battling problems with pace; learners moving at an unpredictable pace which forces spontaneous and skilled improvisation
•
Allowing individual learners to dominate; neglecting to use classroom management techniques within a Dogme framework
•
Wrestling inner demons; extending teacher wait-‐time and handing over control
Dos •
Experiment with different seating arrangements to stimulate discussion. Place chairs in circles, triads or a U-shape without tables. Sit around the same table with learners, or have learners grouped at smaller individual tables. Removing
physical obstacles provides opportunities for increased eye contact and encourages enhanced discussion. •
Prepare a repertoire of adaptable, material-less activities to scaffold and support emerging language and vary lesson pace: mind maps, task-based activities, role plays, drills, dictogloss and learner-created quizzes or exercises. Equally, prepare to respond to different types of content; grammar, lexis, chunks of language, pronunciation, issues of cohesion and discourse features.
•
Encourage learners to take copious notes. Since there are no handouts or materials, this is the most straightforward method of recording classroom content. Also allocate time at the end of each Dogme lesson for additional note-taking if necessary. These notes can then be used to discuss and consolidate the lesson. Alternatives would be to record the lesson and photograph whiteboards.
•
Ask for learner feedback at the end of each Dogme class. This can be done anonymously and in the learners’ L1 if necessary. This gives all the learners the opportunity to provide feedback, including those who feel too shy or lack the confidence to voice their opinion. If carried out face to face as a group, this is also an opportunity to reward learners with praise for providing input.
•
Analyse and reflect on every Dogme class. To ensure language can be reviewed, reworked and remembered, note language that emerged, how it was worked on and how the learners responded. Also, note ideas for the next class to ensure continuity, and make sure any unanswered questions from the learners are answered in the next session.
Don’ts •
Don’t waltz into class and blindly wing it without a copy of the Dogme flow chart and a list of possible activities to use. Dogme lessons require teachers to be highly attentive, prepared to set up and manage different types of
material-less activities, and to think quickly to maintain pace. This requires not only a lot of energy and confidence, but solid pedagogical knowledge.
•
Don’t let your class become a simple chat. While Dogme classes are conversation-driven, they are not merely conversation. Within the Dogme classroom, it is important to move away from simple conversation to focus on emerging language, give learners the chance to digest new forms, and also to clearly differentiate it from a conversation class.
•
Don’t be afraid of making decisions. Dogme does not mean simply letting the learners run wild or dictate every aspect of the class. The teacher also plays an important role in deciding how and when language is scaffolded or supported, when an activity needs to be stopped or extended, or how the classroom and activities are managed.
•
Don’t feel that emergent language has to be dealt with immediately in the lesson in which it surfaces. Sometimes complex questions arise which cannot be answered by both the learners and the teacher. Rather than forcing a (possibly wrong) explanation, acknowledge its complexity and provide opportunities to work on that language in the next lesson.
•
Don’t feel obliged to continue with an activity that is evidently not working or failing to facilitate learning. If something is clearly unsuccessful, admit it with a little humour and try something different. Keep a list of successful and unsuccessful activities and approaches, noting what happened and why. Involve the learners by asking what went wrong and what would work better.
Toolbox 1. The original Dogme article: Thornbury, S. (2000). “A Dogma for EFL.” IATEFL Issues, 153, p. 2. http://www.thornburyscott.com/tu/Dogma%20article.htm 2. The definitive Dogme book: Meddings, L., Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching. Delta Publishing.
3. The video in which Scott Thornbury addresses choosing Dogme for the DELTA EP assignment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ZPlrMajDA 4. Dogme evaluated: Wade, Phil. (2012, February 12). EFL Experiment 2: The ultimate Dogme criticisms and responses. Retrieved from http://eflthoughtsandreflections.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/efl-‐experiment-‐2-‐the-‐ ultimate-‐dogme-‐criticisms-‐and-‐responses/#comment-‐299 5. The Dogme Yahoo! group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/ 6. Current Dogme trends: a) Parry, J. (n.d.) “The Future of Teaching Unplugged (aka Dogme 2.0)” Retrieved from http://theeltexchange.com/2013/05/03/future-teachingunplugged-aka-dogme-2-0/ b) Akyol, B. and Meddings, L. (2013, April). “Unplugged and connected: Where ideas meet.” Paper presented at the 2013 IATEFL Conference, Liverpool, England. Video retrieved from http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2013/sessions/2013-04-10/unplugged-andconnected-where-ideas-meet c) Gaughan, A. and Orde, I. (2010, April). “Simplifying initial language teacher education.” Paper presented at the 2010 IATEFL Conference, Harrogate, England. Video retrieved from http://teachertrainingunplugged.wordpress.com/talks-interviews/iatefl-2010presentation/ 7. Dogme followers: Dale Coulter: http://languagemoments.wordpress.com/ Anthony Gaughan: http://teachertrainingunplugged.com/ Luke Meddings, co-‐founder Christina Rebuffet-‐Broadus: http://ilovetefl.wordpress.com/category/dogme/ Chia Suan Chong: http://chiasuanchong.com/category/dogme/
Chapter References Dörneyei, Z. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Meddings, L. and Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching. Surrey, England: Delta Publishing. Mercer, N. (2003). The educational value of ‘dialogic talk’ in ‘whole-‐class dialogue. New Perspectives on spoken English in the classroom: Discussion papers, 73-‐76. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6062/1/6111_new_perspec_in_spoken_eng_class_room.pdf Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-‐Centered Curriculum. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S. (2000). “A Dogma for EFL.” IATEFL Issues, 153, p. 2. Idem. (2005). “Dogme: Dancing in the Dark?” Folio 9/2. 3-‐5. Accessed May 25, 2013. http://www.thornburyscott.com/assets/dancing%20in%20dark.pdf Idem. [Scott Thornbury]. (2010, July 27). Doing a Dogme lesson. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ZPlrMajDA Trusten, Bill. (n.d.). Teaching tips from the USC Community. Interacting with students. USC Center for Excellence in Teaching. Retrieved from http://cet.usc.edu/resources/teaching_learning/teaching_tips.html#interacting