Title: How and Why To use Dogme ELT with Low-level Learners

Myriam Matmati /2014-2015/

I) Defining Dogma:
First, I will go through the historical origins of Dogme ELT. Then, I will focus on its
basic
principles and reactions from within the ELT world.

Dogme is a teaching philosophy that goes beyond the pedagogical methods we are so
often used to reading about. Scott Thornbury is the main founder of this revolutionary
teaching movement. He and his colleagues realized that too many classes were being
invaded by lesson plans, textbooks, workbooks, tapes, transparencies, flashcards, 
tapes and other materials. The students were no longer the focus of the lesson.

Along came the Dogme Spirit, where the teachers put back their learners at the core of
the Teaching/Learning Process. Dogme ELT basically consists of removing all irrelevant
material to enhance learning. A Dogme classroom is a textbook free zone. In other words,
the classroom free zone as it used to be .

It is worth mentioning that Dogme ELT rises against the massive use of “material-driven”
teaching not because they are intrinsically irrelevant, but because they might hinder the
necessary conditions for language learning. The recrementitious use of materials and
technologies while teaching might submerge real learning opportunities, authentic
communication and one of Humanity’s most forgotten dimensions: the inner life of the
student. As Woodward (1991) puts it:

“…content is very distracting. We all tend to be blinded by content. Students, when asked
what they learned at school that day, are very likely to remember interesting flashes of
parrots and desert islands rather than the main learning point the teacher was trying to
illustrate.” (Woodward 1991, p. 66)

Dogme ELT sees language acquisition process as a developing and complex process that is
affected by the Learners’ social background, personal motivation , skills, concerns,
interests, goals and needs. Opening discussions in a L2 encourages L2 acquisition and use
in the genuine Krashen meaning of this notion (Krashen 1981). Hense, any attempt to
guide it by means of a prescribed textbook is irrelevant. This can be worst if the teacher
uses “imported grammar-driven materials” to control the learning process. Such
procedures would lessen the learners active role of thinking and producing and would
mold them into passive users of “grammar McNuggets  as Thornbury calls them
(Thornbury 2000 (i))”. This is clearly depicted in Freire’s banking model of education where
the teachers make deposits of information which students are to receive, memorise and
repeat (Freire 1970). As a result, the more students store what they were fed, the less they
acquire critical thinking, use creativity and develop communication skills. (158 wds)
Therefore, Dogme ELT denies any prepared syllabus of grammar or lexical-notional items.
Instead, language learning is to happen thanks to real life social interaction. The course
syllabus is discussed with the students and tailored to their personal profiles. 38W)

Dogme ELT doesn’t focuse on spoken language only. Teachers must ensure that lessons
are language rich. Language should in no way be used for “metalanguage”. Instead,
teachers emphasize on meaningful communication which is relevant to students’ learning
and socio-cultural context in order to satisfy their pedagogical needs (cf. Thornbury 2001).
50WRDS

“A Dogme ELT classroom is similar to an informal education classroom, where the primary
goal of the teachers is to facilitate learning (and not just to operate learning materials).
The nature of the student-teacher relationship is rid of the traditional student-teacher,
them-and-us division. Both students and the teacher in the Dogme ELT classroom are
members of a small culture with local needs and local concerns, and learning potential. It
is then logical that the texts and topics they require should be locally generated. This
might mean the students themselves choose their topics and texts.” (Thornbury &
Meddings 2003).

Student would be the main source of all languages emerging in the classroom. Language
practice activities are direct and relevant for the students’ needs and interests. Students
are to talk about themselves and their experiences. Such personalized Learning Process
simply meets their interest which increases their intrinsic motivation. Whilst interactive
activities would encourage the students to produce more accurate and appropriate
language. As a result, it provides input for other students (cf. Hedge, 2000). “Language is
not a subject in itself, but a medium for other subjects, so there is potentially an
inexhaustible supply of topics that may prove of interest to students” (Thornbury &
Meddings 2001). Learners are pushed to communicate in English, but the use of their first
language is not prohibited if it facilitates L2 acquisition at the time.

Teacher’s task in the Dogme ELT classroom is to scaffold communication, manage and
facilitate the social processes out of which and for which language develops. Teachers are
no more bound to lessons preparing and preconceived strict planning. The Dogme teacher
should facilitate for a lesson that would be shaped by the people in the room. Though, a
Dogme ELT teacher be:

 First, a skilled linguist, who knows how language works and how to exploit emerging
language as a tool in learning and teaching in the classroom.
 Second, a skilled and objective observer, who shows a lot of interest in the learners.
 Third, a good manager of the classroom diversity in order to meet the various
needs.
 Finally, an activist who shows interest in the world and even willingness to change it
(cf. Meddings & Thornbury 2003).
 In the true Dogme style, the below rules are not meant to be followed blindly, but rather
meant to be used and molded to each and every teaching context.

 Students should provide the used Resources in the classroom.

 Students should produce the listening materials.

 The teacher needs to model academic English with clear pronunciation and diction.
Teachers should also refrain from using slang and grade their speech to the learners ‘level.

 All language used should be 'real' language and so have a communicative purpose.

 Grammar work should arise naturally during the lesson and should not be the
driving force behind it.

 Most importantly, Students should not be placed into different level groups.

II) Why Dogme ELT:

I will state the reasons behind my interest in this Topic. I will justify such a choice
in relation to both my Teaching weaknesses and my students’ needs. (words)

My decision to experiment Dogme ELT is influenced by my current teaching context. Being

community-based, is very ‘dogmesque’. In our classrooms, we sometimes lack of some
essentials such as learning-conducive classroom, interactive boards and readily available
ELT materials. This made me look for an alternative teaching method totally different to
what I am accustomed to. Dogme ELT meets ideally my teaching context. it transforms the
lack of ELT materials into a blessing rather than a curse.

I believe that ELT development fosters me to think about my teaching goal of self-
improvement. My initial strong and rather negative reaction to Dogme ELT was to
questions about the amount of photocopies I bring to the classroom. They became a
barrier between me and my students. It made me realize that perhaps I became
dependent as well as my learners on teaching materials. I was stifling students’ real
learning opportunities. So I asked myself: “Am I able to teach effectively without the
excess of paper and technology and go back to the true spirit of community education?”

Dogme ELT made me reflect on my teaching style. I was quite controlling, and I would like
to try and adopt a lower profile in my classroom. I would like to give my students more
ownership of what is happening in class and letting them guide the direction of the lesson.

III) The objectives for the experimental lesson

In this section, the candidate sets out specific objectives for the lesson. ( 200 words)
The class I have chosen for the experimental lesson is a pre-intermediate B1 monolingual
group of Arab Muslim young men. They are aged from 18 to 22. They are Saudi
apprentices At Saudi Aramco Company. They are attending an English course as part of
professional training program. After successful completion, they might regain their sites. It
will be rewarding to see how positively they will react to a lesson format different from
what they have been used to. I feel they could benefit from Dogme ELT because they do
not want to follow a standard syllabus, but need to be able to communicate better on
their own. They mainly want to improve their speaking and listening. However, their
knowledge and use of the English language varies a lot from student to student.
The objectives of the lesson will show how workable Dogme ELT is in this authentic
teaching context.
The students aren't seated behind desks. It's much harder for them to express themselves
in this artificial setting. There's no reason why they can't have some paper and pens but
definitely no textbook. I always have 
a white board for them to use. They set the chairs their own way to give a comfy
atmosphere to the classroom. Added to that, I would put some music playing in the
background. The music would be changing to the pace of the activity undertaken by the
learners. In a 'pure' Dogme classroom though there wouldn't be music unless produced by
the students themselves, so I thought of asking them to collaborate and make music folder
that gathers the music they would like to listen to. The atmosphere should definitely be
relaxed. Once the students understand the concept of autonomy and controlling their
learning I find they are far more willing to participate, lead the sessions and discipline
almost becomes a thing of the past. They soon enter the classroom full of ideas and zeal
while I rather monitor and facilitate the learning process.

The objectives of the experimental lesson are therefore:

A. For the teacher:

 To test the validity of Dogme ELT methodology:

 To see what the students make of it,
 To see to what extend the students are engaged in the lesson,
 To see if they enjoy Dogme-like teaching and learning.
 To test if Dogme ELT is applicable to all level students.
 To see if I can effectively cope with emerging language and incorporating it into on-
the-spot created activities.
 To test if Dogme ELT is usable with all-level groups
 To discover if I can create on-the-spot activities to help learners with language
needs which emerge
 To discover how I feel in giving the learners more control of the lesson
 To find out what the learners think of this different style of lesson
B. For the learners:

 Refer back to their personal objective sheet and relate everything they choose to do
in class to at least one of their objectives. 

 Develop their oral skills in at least one everyday situation

 Use each other as well as the teacher as a language resource

I intend to intend to evaluate my objectives through a questionnaire that students will be

asked to complete after the lesson. I will also ask my tutor and some more experienced
colleague to have a look at my lesson plan. I will invite them to attend my lesson, observe
it and give me feedback remarks in details.

IV) Evaluation and Feedback:

Although I think that I responded to the emergent language well, one difficulty I faced was
the range of situations which students wanted help with (from chats at work to trying on
clothes in a shop). With only five students, I chose to work on each situation a little, but
this would have been impossible with a bigger class. I think I could have dealt with the
emergent language in a more systematic way, linking all of the situations together.
I feel that the learners would have got even more out of the lesson if we had done the
stages up to ‘Group help’ at the end of one lesson. I could have then taken away
information about their needs and wants (and emergent language) and prepared the
following lesson more tailored to them, using relevant materials.
Criticism of evaluation tools2
Having a colleague observe the class and watching a recording of the lesson myself were
both very useful to get information about the learners’ attitudes as well as my own
decision-making processes. However, the questionnaire used for the students was not
particularly effective, as answers were limited and two students did not return the
questionnaires. It would have been better to give a slightly shorter lesson and then record
a 10-minute discussion with the learners about it afterwards.
Lessons learnt and implications for future lessons
In general terms, this lesson showed me that using Dogme ELT with lower-level classes can
be beneficial, but having evaluated reaction from students, myself and my observer, I have
come to the following conclusions:
 Giving mixed-level learners the chance to influence the lesson content can be motivating
and useful for them. However, their needs can be very diverse. As a result, certain
parameters are useful (e.g. ‘a situation in a shop’, rather than ‘a situation you find yourself
in’) so that some framework is maintained.
mixed-level learners are able to use each other as a language resource to some extent and
like finding out about each other and like practicing speaking. However, this needs to be
clearly supported and guided by the teacher if learning is to take place.

It is possible to focus on and practice emergent language successfully with a low-level

group, but this puts a great demand on the teacher to monitor, facilitate, notice emergent
language and create meaningful input/practice activities. This requires experience and
skill: my observer noted that the lesson was ‘quite challenging’ for me as the teacher and
that I ‘had to work a lot’. If I did this type of lesson again, it would be in two parts: in one
lesson I would find out what the learners want and need, and I would then devise
activities/look for materials to help them for use in the second lesson.

At pre-intermediate level, learners may not have developed the necessary study skills to
benefit from a Dogme-style lesson, and so still need materials to provide structure and
clear contexts for language development. This has made me appreciate the value of the
course book.

In general, I will attempt to make my lessons more student-centered and conversation-

driven, but I will still use materials such as course books and printables to provide solid
practice at lower levels. Pure Dogme-ELT lessons at this level are likely to be one-off
lessons.

Resources

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. OUP

Jeffs, T. & Smith, M. K. (1996) Informal Education. Conversation, democracy and learning. Ticknall: Education Now.

Krashen, S.D. (1981) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. English Language Teaching Series. London:
Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2003) What Dogme Feels Like.  Humanizing Language Teaching, Year 5, Issue 6, November 03.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching,  CUP.

Stevick, E. (1980) Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways.,  Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Thornbury, S. (2000) A Dogma for EFL. IATEFL Issues 153, Feb/March 2000.

Thornbury, S. (2000 (i)) McEnglish in Australia. A paper given at the 13 th EA Educational Conference in Fremantle ,Western
Australia. (URL: www.teaching-unplugged.com/mcenglish.html)

Thornbury, S. (2001) Teaching Unplugged (Or That’s Dogme with and E). It’s for Teachers,  Feb Issue

(URL: www.teaching-unplugged.com/itsmagazine.html)
Thornbury, S. & Meddings, L. (2001) Roaring In the Chimney (or What Coursebooks are Good For).Modern English Teacher, Vol.
10/3, July 2001.

Thornbury, S. & Meddings, L. (2001(i)) Dogme out in the Open. IATEFL Issues,  Vol. 162, June/July.

Thornbury S., Meddings L. (2003) Dogme still able to divide ELT. Guardian Weekly, Thursday, April 17, 2003.

Woodward, T. (1991) Models and Metaphors in Language Teacher Training. Loop input and other strategies. CUP

Biodata Małgorzata Bryndal has been involved in English language teaching for ten years.  She has taught in schools in Poland
and the UK.  From 2005 she has been an Assistant Examiner for Cambridge ESOL upper main suite examinations and an Oral
Assessor for Cambridge ESOL Skills for Life speaking and listening exam.  She is currently working for English in Chester and
occasionally as freelance interpreter and translator.

Małgorzata’s qualifications include a PhD in Linguistics from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland; an MA in
Linguistics and Information Science from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland, the RSA Cambridge Diploma (DELTA), and the
RSA CELTA (A).

Her professional interests include teacher development and teacher training, L1& L2 phonology and idiomaticity.

You can contact Małgorzata at:  mbryndal@poczta.fm

Appendix A

Dogme ELT Vows of Chastity:

...” 1. Teaching should be done using only the resources that teachers and students bring to the classroom - i.e. themselves -
and whatever happens to be in the classroom. If a particular piece of material is necessary for the lesson, a location must be
chosen where that material is to be found (e.g. library, resource centre, bar, students' club…).

2. No recorded listening material should be introduced into the classroom: the source of all "listening" activities should be the
students and teacher themselves. The only recorded material that is used should be that made in the classroom itself, e.g.
recording students in pair or group work for later re-play and analysis.

3. The teacher must sit down at all times that the students are seated, except when monitoring group or pair work (and even
then it may be best to pull up a chair). In small classes, teaching should take place around a single table.

4. All the teacher's questions must be "real" questions (such as "Do you like oysters?" Or "What did you do on Saturday?"), not
"display" questions (such as "What's the past of the verb to go?" or "Is there a clock on the wall?").

5. Slavish adherence to a method (such as audiolingualism, Silent Way, TPR, task-based learning, suggestopedia) is
unacceptable.

6. A pre-planned syllabus of pre-selected and graded grammar items is forbidden. Any grammar that is the focus of instruction
should emerge from the lesson content, not dictate it.

7. Topics that are generated by the students themselves must be given priority over any other input.

8. Grading of students into different levels is disallowed: students should be free to join the class that they feel most
comfortable in, whether for social reasons, or for reasons of mutual intelligibility, or both. As in other forms of human social
interaction, diversity should be accommodated, even welcomed, but not proscribed.

9. The criteria and administration of any testing procedures must be negotiated with the learners. ’’

10. Teachers themselves will be evaluated according to only one criterion: that they are not boring.

(in: Thornbury, 2001 pp.4-5)