1 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2

2 Dogme background.................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Historical context ............................................................................................................... 2

2.2 The Dogme Principles ......................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Techniques and strategies .................................................................................................. 3

2.4 Issues and implications....................................................................................................... 4

2.4.1 Unpredictability .......................................................................................................... 4

2.4.2 Affective considerations ............................................................................................. 4

2.4.3 Stimulus ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.4.4 Structure .................................................................................................................... 5

3 Context relevance ...................................................................................................................... 5

4 The Lesson ................................................................................................................................. 5

4.1 Lesson outline .................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 6

4.3 Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 6

5 Post-lesson reflection and evaluation ........................................................................................ 7

5.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 Follow-up work .................................................................................................................. 7

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendices...................................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix 1: Venn Diagram .......................................................................................................... 10

Appendix 2: Survey templates ..................................................................................................... 10

Appendix 3: Student questionnaire .............................................................................................. 11

Appendix 4: Responding to individual needs ................................................................................ 11

Appendix 5: Tools and strategies used ......................................................................................... 12

Appendix 6: Emergent language and course aims ........................................................................ 12

Appendix 7: Time spent on Dogme activities ................................................................................ 13

Appendix 8: Effectiveness of Dogme activities ............................................................................. 13

Appendix 9 .................................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix 10: whiteboard picture................................................................................................. 14

Appendix 11: My Dogme note-taking template ............................................................................ 15

Appendix 12: Lesson plan ............................................................................................................ 16

Appendix 13: Dogme framework (Lackman, 2019:10) .............................................................. 18

2 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

1 Introduction

My approach to planning has always been “transmissive and outcomes-oriented” (Anderson, 2015:228); controlling and predicting learning made me feel safer. Furthermore, curiosity to use new online resources and create more attractive materials added more planning hours to my schedule.

When I first heard of Dogme, I was sceptical and critical of its usefulness; I considered it a lazy approach for teachers who wanted to avoid planning and preparation.

After reading more about Dogme, I now believe it is not merely improvising in class, but a challenging and unpredictable approach (Wright and Broadus, 2013) that trains teachers to become more focussed on their learners’ emergent needs. Dogme challenged my belief that a professional teacher is one who carries a big pile of materials and pre-determines learning outcomes. It suggests that effective teaching is reactive, i.e. when teachers can react to learning affordances (Anderson, 2015).

As also mentioned in my PDA, Dogme could help overcome my teaching weaknesses; responding to learners’ output and applying affordance-based (Anderson, 2015) teaching, i.e. dealing with emergent language. I have not consistently exploited the language that emerges through my learners’ need to communicate; therefore, I chose Dogme to experiment on a more responsive teaching approach.

2 Dogme background

2.1 Historical context

Dogme was inspired in 1995, when Scott Thornbury watched a Lars Von Trier film, which he

described as minimalistic and authentic instead of dazzling viewers with special effects and

trickery (Thornbury, 2000).

He wrote an article about the need for a similar teaching approach, which received a lot of

interest; as a result, Dogme was born. Meddings and Thornbury (2017) describe it as a

movement, started by teachers who were frustrated by their dependence on coursebooks

and other teaching materials (2013).

As Meddings and Thornbury (2017) explain, at the time Dogme emerged, although the

communicative approach was popular, a-priori syllabuses, i.e controlling selection and

sequence of language items, were still the norm. Moving from product to process learning

was the next step, i.e. focusing not on what is learned but how it is learned, i.e. with task-

based lessons. Thus, Dogme was a learner-centred and process-focussed philosophy, geared

towards making the opposite of a-priori; an a-posteriori syllabus based on learners’ needs.

3 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

At first, Dogme was criticised (Meddings and Thornbury, 2017); however, it is currently

popular among teachers and a common choice for experimental practice, giving DELTA

candidates an opportunity to truly reflect on their teaching (Wright and Broadus, 2013).

2.2 The Dogme Principles

Dogme lends itself to a learner-centred curriculum; it focuses on the process of

communicating and learning (Meddings and Thornbury, 2017). The heart of Dogme is

uncovering “the syllabus within” instead of covering items on a syllabus (Meddings and

Thornbury, 2017:16). The writers state that its three main principles are that it is:

1. Conversation driven. Chatting and interacting with the teacher does not cause

anxiety; on the contrary, it relaxes and motivates learners, providing a sense of

achievement in communicating with a proficient speaker.

2. Materials light. It is not suggested that coursebooks have no value; simply that over-

reliance is not beneficial.

3. Focussed on emergent language. Dogme does not focus on discrete-item teaching,

there is no hidden agenda to teach grammar. Through the emergence of language,

acquisition occurs.

2.3 Techniques and strategies

A Dogme class does not necessarily lack structure. Meddings and Thornbury (2017) propose

a useful structure:

1. Set it up: teachers/learners decide on a topic.

2. Let it run: learners complete a task or engage in discussion about the selected topic.

3. Round it off: groups report their opinions or survey results. The teacher provides

feedback at that stage, although feedback can be ongoing.

4. Follow up: Consolidation of learning through classwork or homework.

McCabe (2005) also mentions writing blog posts, doing fluency tasks or students teaching

lessons as ideal Dogme activities.

Crabbe (2007) suggests another interesting framework of learning opportunities which can

be used in Dogme classes:

• input

• output

• rehearsal

• interaction

• feedback

• language understanding

• learning understanding

4 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Meddings and Thornbury (2017) highlight the following strategies of dealing with emergent

language as the protein of Dogme:

Reward it Praise learners for their contributions

Retrieve it Use it-don’t ignore it

Repeat it Drill it

Recast it Upgrade it

Report it Ask learners to report findings

Recycle it Encourage learners to use it in context

Record it Ensure learners keep notes

Research it Help learners notice patterns

Reference it Link it to your syllabus

Review it Ask learners what they have learned or understood at the end of class

2.4 Issues and implications

2.4.1 Unpredictability

Dogme is risky, hence, inexperienced or non-native speaker teachers may find it

overwhelming and choose to rely on coursebooks and lesson plans instead; unless they were

trained to be reactive teachers. To make the transition from proactive to reactive teaching

smoother, Dogme can be a “supplementary approach” (McCabe, 2005:335). Meddings and

Thornbury (2017) state that teachers can use:

• a coursebook and slowly incorporate unplugged activities.

• predictable topics that can be easily personalized, e.g. or how they got their name.

• templates that can be used with any topic, e.g. Venn diagrams (Appendix 1) or

surveys (Appendix 2).

2.4.2 Affective considerations

Shy students, or students from input-oriented backgrounds, e.g. China, where the teacher is

the authority in the classroom, may feel uncomfortable if put in the spotlight and fail to notice

Dogme’s usefulness. Therefore, teachers should:

• explain the principles and benefits of Dogme before class.

• be sensitive to learners’ mood.

• switch to familiar approaches at the first sign of discomfort.

• be patient; it might take many lessons for students to become comfortable with

Dogme.

2.4.3 Stimulus

5 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

The lack of coursebooks or materials does not equal a lack of stimulus. According to Meddings

and Thornbury (2017), learners can bring texts about topics that interest them. Teachers can

also use the news or invite a guest that the class can interview.

2.4.4 Structure

Dogme is not necessarily unstructured; there are certain frameworks (2.3) teachers can follow

to feel more prepared.

Teachers should also keep track of the emergent language. One of my colleagues records it in

a google doc which is shared with class. Another idea is to encourage students to record it in

their notebooks or their digital notebooks, where they can also upload pictures of the

whiteboard.

Dogme classes should be linked to course aims (2.3), e.g. if functional language to express

opinion is an item on the syllabus, it can be practised in Dogme conversation classes.

Finally, students can keep their activities in portfolios (2.3) and organise them by topic or by

objective achieved.

3 Context relevance

My current group consists of five adult learners and is a highly mixed level group. Planning is

challenging; materials and activities must cater for all levels and needs. I contend that since

the focus of Dogme is the learner and not the syllabus or the coursebook, it will allow for

differentiated learning.

Dogme is ideal for my students, who are Catalan, therefore highly social in nature; pair and

group activities always stimulate and engage them.

This is a General English course with a communicative approach; lessons are mostly

conversation-focused and based on learners’ interests; hence, a Dogme class will be in line

with the teaching context.

Finally, since my learners meet after work and energy levels can be low, a conversation-driven

will engage them more than controlled language-focussed activities.

4 The Lesson

4.1 Lesson outline

I will combine the frameworks in 2.3 and begin by talking to students about a topic for one

minute. Students will be allowed to ask for repetition or clarification. After the input stage,

they will:

6 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

• prepare a mini presentation about a topic they choose

• present it in pairs, then in open class

• reflect on all the presentations, choose their favourite and justify their choice.

Feedback will be ongoing and will focus on emergent language. I will make on-the-spot

decisions about activities to exploit emergent language, using strategies from 2.3.

Interrupting to ask for repetition and clarification resonate with the communicative

approach of the course; they are also one of the course aims.

(Appendix 12)

4.2 Objectives

My teaching objectives for this lesson will be:

1. To focus my teacher talk on the local and relevant needs of the people in the room

(Thornbury, 2000).

2. To feel more confident to create on-the-spot activities to practise emergent language

and identify their effectiveness.

3. To link emergent language to course aims or previously learned language.

The objectives for my learners will be:

1. To notice and explore emergent language beyond just taking notes and doing

homework.

2. To use each other as a resource and rely less on the teacher.

4.3 Evaluation

To evaluate overall effectiveness of the lesson I will distribute post-lesson questionnaires

(appendix 3) to find out how useful learners found the lesson.

To evaluate teaching objectives, I will audio-record the class and keep notes on:

• the quantity and quality of my responses to learners’ individual needs (Appendix 4).

• the activities and strategies used and their results (Appendix 5).

• how I created a link between emergent language and syllabus items (Appendix 6).

To evaluate learners’ objectives, I will have a follow-up conversation with them to reflect on

new language and how they have used it. I will also take notes and use the recording to find

out the percentage of student-student interaction versus student-teacher interaction.

7 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

5 Post-lesson reflection and evaluation

5.1 Objectives

Overall, the lesson exceeded my expectations. Allowing learners choice of topic resulted in

maximum engagement and interaction.

I have achieved my teaching aims, as I used a variety of activities to deal with learner

output, (appendix 7). Emphasis was placed on upgrading language and less time was

dedicated to pair and group chats to recycle the language. What students found particularly

useful, was research it; they looked up and explained patterns, e.g. why very awful is

inaccurate. Then, they added more ungradable adjectives to the list, such as amazing or

fantastic (appendix 8). During the reflection stage, many students said this activity really

helped them notice and learn from their errors.

Reference to syllabus items was achieved to an extent, e.g. by recycling the present perfect

with have you ever questions to talk about experiences mentioned by students (appendix 9).

I focussed on individual needs by giving immediate feedback during pair work and delayed

post-discussion correction. Moreover, I addressed individual errors, e.g. phonological,

grammatical, lexical and helped improve their discourse competence with fillers, e.g. well

instead of bueno (appendix 10).

I was concerned that immediate correction might have been more useful; however, learners

stated that this delayed language focus did not block their fluency.

Students gave each other feedback on language, e.g. Ariadna corrected Neus when she said

/spuːk/ for spoke. They used emergent language in mini chats, like true for you or have you

ever done that? My teacher intervention was minimal while STT was high (see appendix).

According to feedback, this class was more enjoyable and useful than coursebook-based

classes. I was also surprised but pleased to witness that Esther, the weakest student, felt

comfortable to recount her summer holidays, interacted well with her peers and back-

channelled them for the first time.

5.2 Follow-up work

I am now convinced that Dogme is beneficial and will use it more in the future; especially

with Mediterranean students who are highly interpersonal. I will create my own templates

to better and faster record learner output, so that I deal with it more effectively (appendix

12). When I feel more confident, I will experiment with a true material and lesson plan-free

Dogme lesson (appendix 13).

8 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

With lower levels, I will allow students to choose their own materials and prepare mini-

presentations before class; preparation and rehearsal will increase confidence and improve

performance.

Recording was a powerful reflection tool for me; listening to learner output helped me

better understand their needs. I will also encourage learners to record themselves, listen to

the recording after or during class with their headphones, and write down any problems

they notice.

9 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Bibliography

Anderson, J. (2015). Affordance, learning opportunities, and the lesson plan pro forma. ELT

Journal, 69(3), pp.228-238.

Crabbe, D. (2007). Learning opportunities: adding learning value to tasks. ELT Journal, 61(2),

pp.117-125.

Lackman, K. (2019). [online] Kenlackman.com. Available at:

http://kenlackman.com/files/cathandoutfinal.pdf [Accessed 28 Sep. 2019].

McCabe, D. Dogme. (2005). ELT Journal, 59(4), pp.333-335.

Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2017). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language

Teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen GmbH.

Thornbury, S. (2019). [online] Nebula.wsimg.com. Available at:

http://nebula.wsimg.com/9b68504ac4d9fc9129802929d38157f5?AccessKeyId=186A535D1

BA4FC995A73&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 [Accessed 11 Jun. 2019].

Thornbury, S. (2013) The language Teacher. [online] Nebula.wsimg.com. Available at:

http://nebula.wsimg.com/1314c2b2a10b6b7eb1b3065ff3faf353?AccessKeyId=186A535D1B

A4FC995A73&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 [Accessed 11 Jun. 2019].

Thornbury, S. (2004). Articles for the learner-centred teacher. [online] Old.hltmag.co.uk.

Available at: http://old.hltmag.co.uk/mar05/mart03.htm [Accessed 11 Jun. 2019].

Thornbury, S. (2000). A Dogma for EFL. IATEFL issues, 153, 2.

Wright, J., and Broadus, C. R. 2013. Experimental Practice in ELT: Walk on the Wild Side., available at www.scribd.com, www.scribd.com/read/210947438/Experimental-Practice-in-ELT-Walk-on-the-wild-side#. (Accessed 20 May 2019)

10 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendices

Appendix 1: Venn Diagram

Appendix 2: Survey templates

Student’s name:

Statements I agree I disagree I am not sure

e.g. Married people should only go out with other couples.

√

11 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendix 3: Student questionnaire

Please answer the questions in English or Spanish. Thank you.

Did you enjoy the lesson?

Did you find the lesson useful? How?

What did you learn from this lesson?

How could the lesson be improved?

Did the teacher respond to your individual learning needs?

Did you give or receive helpful feedback from your classmates?

Did you need more guidance or support from the teacher? Describe how.

Appendix 4: Responding to individual needs

Examples of how T responded to individual needs Antoni

Neus

Ariadna

Esther

Isabel

12 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendix 5: Tools and strategies used

On-the-spot activities/strategies used results/ usefulness

Appendix 6: Emergent language and course aims

Emergent language Link to course aims or previously learned language

13 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendix 7: Time spent on Dogme activities

Appendix 8: Effectiveness of Dogme activities

Reward it Drill it Upgrade it Research it Review it Recycle it Reference it

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reward it

Upgrade it

Repeat it

Research it

Recycle it

Reference it

Review it

Effectiveness of Dogme activities

14 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendix 9

Emergent language Link to course aims or previously learned language

Bungee jumping (puenting)

Present perfect – have you ever done bungee jumping?

“Not now but in the past I liked sunbathing”

I used to like sunbathing but I don’t anymore

Avoidance of using the past form of discover and jump

Linked to -ed past ending and elicited correct pronunciation

Mispronunciation of sufficient.

Elicited taught synonym: enough

“Nobody told me”

Elicited the question “did anyone tell you that..” to link to previously taught indefinite pronouns.

Appendix 10: whiteboard picture

15 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendix 11: My Dogme note-taking template

Reward it Upgrade it Drill it

Research it Recycle it Review it

Reference it Other

16 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendix 12: Lesson plan

Stage Timing Aims Procedure Interaction

Set it up/ Input stage

3-4’ 1. To practice reciprocal listening and allow students control over input.

2. To engage and motivate students to listen.

3. To provide a stimulus for the lesson.

• T tells ss that she is going to talk to them about the advantages and disadvantages of living abroad. She tells ss they can interrupt and ask questions at any point.

T to ss

Let it run/ Rehearsal

stage

5’ 1. To increase confidence by allowing preparation.

2. To provide feedback on language where necessary.

• T tells ss to think of a topic they would like to talk about for about one minute. She writes some ideas on the wb, e.g. a hobby, a friend, their favourite book/film, etc. She gives ss preparation time and encourages ss to take notes.

• T monitors and provides help if ss seek it.

individual

Round it off/ Output and interaction

stage

5’-7’

1. To use each other as a feedback resource.

2. To rehearse real-life situations, NN speaker to NN speaker.

3. To use compensation strategies for communication breakdowns.

4. To practice dialogic speech and interactional competence.

• T tells ss to rehearse their presentation in pairs. Partners can interrupt, ask for clarifications or ask questions. She encourages peer feedback.

• T monitors and provides individual feedback where necessary.

PW

15-20’

• T tells ss to repeat their presentation in whole class. When one classmate talks about their topic, the others can interrupt, ask for clarifications or ask questions.

WHC

17 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

• Ss do their-mini presentations and engage in interaction. T takes notes of language to explore in feedback stage.

Feedback slot 1/

Language understanding

5-10’ 1. To exploit and upgrade learner output

2. To ensure learners keep a record of emergent language

• T praises ss for examples of good language use and records them on wb.

• T elicits reformulation of inaccurate utterances.

• T drills words ss mispronounced.

• T boards sentences with emergent language and ss discuss if they are true for them.

• T encourages ss to take notes.

• T encourages ss to share a picture of the wb on their WhatsApp group.

• T decides and sets up further on-the-spot activities

T to ss

Follow- up / Learning understanding

10’ 1. To provide fluency practice 2. To allow students to reflect on

their own and their peers’ strengths and weaknesses.

• T encourages ss to discuss in groups which presentation they enjoyed and why. Ss can talk about content, language use and general performance, e.g. pronunciation, enthusiasm, fluency.

• Ss report in open class.

GW

Abbreviations

T Ss

Wb PW GW

WHC

Teacher Students Whiteboard Pair work Group work Whole Class

18 | R a c h i l T s a t e r i E x p e r i m e n t a l P r a c t i c e - D o g m e

Appendix 13: Dogme framework (Lackman, 2019:10)