Given the Dogme  list's passionate interest in technology in educational
contexts, I'm forwarding this message I just received from a UN information
service. Copy to YLTSIG, ttedsig, Evonline and learning with computers


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: UNNews <UNNews@...>
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Subject: WINNERS OF UN PRIZE FOR USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION UNVEILED
To: news10@...


WINNERS OF UN PRIZE FOR USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION UNVEILED
New York, Nov 27 2009  4:05PM
The Rector of the Moscow Institute of Open Education and Jordan's Ministry
of Information and Communications Techonology have been chosen as the
winners of an annual United Nations prize for the use of ICTs in education.

They were chosen from among 39 projects in 29 countries by the UN
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (<
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29008&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.\
html>UNESCO)
for the 2009 UNESCO King Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa Prize.

Under the leadership of Rector Alexei Semenov, the Moscow Institute of Open
Education has provided in-service training to about 30,000 teachers annually
for the past 16 years.

According to a <
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=46952&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.\
html>news
release issued by UNESCO, Mr. Semenov has developed exemplary programmes to
enable teachers to include ICTs in their work, as w
ell as textbooks and teacher guides used widely in Russia and other
countries.

Jordan''s Ministry of Information and Communications Technology won for its
Jordan Education Initiative. Launched in 2003, the public-private
partnership has trained over 3,000 teachers in ICT skills.

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova will present the $25,000 award to each
of the two winners at a ceremony on 26 January at the agency's headquarters
in Paris.

Honourable Mentions for this year's Prize went to Thailand Cyber University,
which provides ICT training for teachers, and to the Red de Profesores
Innovadores (Network of Innovative Teachers) of the Fundación Chile, which
has set up a portal to help teachers use ICTs and exchange best practices.

________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml


Dennis
--
Dennis Newson, retired,
Formerly: University of Osnabrück.
Webhead, member of SLexperiments.
Moderator OWL and YLTSIG lists,
Member of IATEFL YLTSIG committee.
Resident of Second Life.
Founder of a number of TEFL lists.
http://www.dennisnewson.de


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just a moment. Looking for my "Moderator Discussions Young Learners and
Teenageres" list hat.

Are, here it is:

Try our site:


yltsig.com


and look under both forthcoming and previous discussions (Drop down menu at
the top of the screen).

The discussion itself, which was excellent, is on the Yahoogroups list at:

Related Link: http://www.yltsig.com Post message:
younglearners@yahoogroups.com Subscribe:
younglearners-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe:
younglearners-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner:
younglearners-owner@yahoogroups.com

Any questions, do send to me here or at:

djn@...


Dennis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And, if you like this kind of thing, there've been a lot of similar ideas on the
YLTSig list recently, as Andrew Wright fielded a great (materials free)
discussion on story-telling.

Dennis'll know the link......








--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, "Karenne Sylvester" <kalinagoenglish@...> wrote:
>
> from one of my conversation lessons this week, with adults but reckon
adaptable...  I might have posted this idea up before, it's an old fave.
>
> Materials: 0
>
> LP
> Ask the questions: What stories do you like best?
> Who tells the best stories in your family/ amongst your friends?
>
> What sort of stories do we usually tell? (eliciting for things like: comedy,
tragedy, love stories, horror, adventure, gossip, childhood...etc etc, but get
them to give you ideas without supplying too many more)
>
> What type of story would you like me to tell you?
>
> Students then pick which they'd like to hear (make sure you have previously
already chosen stories from your own life which can fit in any of these
categories).
>
> Tell the story...
>
> Then get the students to spend a little while reflecting on a story of their
own, one that fits into the genres as listed previously, or elicit for more and
add ideas like "my best/worst day" "my best achievement" "the strangest thing I
ever saw"... etc
>
> If you have pens and paper, you can get them to jot down notes (mine
brainstorm in a circle on a piece of paper only writing keywords).
>
> Then asking them to only using their clouds, encourage them to share stories
in grand old round-the-campfire tradition.  (If you can get them sitting in a
circle... nice, dunno why, but this always creates a nice atmosphere when I do
this lesson).
>
>
> AND....for the techies... (as above, up to here, 0 materials) but now,
follow-up task... head to the computers (or set as a post-task) and get them to
blog (or write) their stories, adding photos, drawings, images and links as they
wish.
>
>
> My stories during this week were mostly emotionally charged: birth of a son,
loss of friends to the tsunami, a marriage then went wrong on day 3... but some
were work and project related, some about things that happened back in the good
old days of University, others a holiday-gone-wrong, a climbing fall, an
unexpected gift...
>

from one of my conversation lessons this week, with adults but reckon
adaptable...  I might have posted this idea up before, it's an old fave.

Materials: 0

LP
Ask the questions: What stories do you like best?
Who tells the best stories in your family/ amongst your friends?

What sort of stories do we usually tell? (eliciting for things like: comedy,
tragedy, love stories, horror, adventure, gossip, childhood...etc etc, but get
them to give you ideas without supplying too many more)

What type of story would you like me to tell you?

Students then pick which they'd like to hear (make sure you have previously
already chosen stories from your own life which can fit in any of these
categories).

Tell the story...

Then get the students to spend a little while reflecting on a story of their
own, one that fits into the genres as listed previously, or elicit for more and
add ideas like "my best/worst day" "my best achievement" "the strangest thing I
ever saw"... etc

If you have pens and paper, you can get them to jot down notes (mine brainstorm
in a circle on a piece of paper only writing keywords).

Then asking them to only using their clouds, encourage them to share stories in
grand old round-the-campfire tradition.  (If you can get them sitting in a
circle... nice, dunno why, but this always creates a nice atmosphere when I do
this lesson).


AND....for the techies... (as above, up to here, 0 materials) but now, follow-up
task... head to the computers (or set as a post-task) and get them to blog (or
write) their stories, adding photos, drawings, images and links as they wish.


My stories during this week were mostly emotionally charged: birth of a son,
loss of friends to the tsunami, a marriage then went wrong on day 3... but some
were work and project related, some about things that happened back in the good
old days of University, others a holiday-gone-wrong, a climbing fall, an
unexpected gift...

I think...

that consolidation, albeit "language use" offers the most natural way
thereof, may (mostly in case of avid learners with well developed Brock's
area of the left brain hemisphere) be helped with a pinch of grammar input;
it comes as a follow-up, when a certain structure emerged naturally in
course of the lesson/meeting/conversation/whatever you call those events.
there are people who just love unraveling linguistic puzzles and thrive on
practising through exercises. when/if it fulfills the need of th particular
individual... I had quite a few clients who proved the above to me in spite
of my skittishness about "teaching grammar"

Zosia


dogme@yahoogroups.com napisa³(a):

   I think dogme deals with consolidation by continuing to use the language
   ;-P. The idea behind emergentism is that through use, everything gets
   uncovered. So, keep using.

   As mentioned earlier, consolidation can happen despite distance by
   making good use of technology. Blogs, emails, voicemails, and the myriad
   of Web 2.0 applications that are there for the stealing. They also help
   the student feel reassured by making them see that their teacher keeps
   them in mind between classes.

   Homework such as, "trawl around and see if you can find ten different
   examples of what we have been looking at" also provides opportunities
   for consolidation.I think keen language learners (as Kamilla seems to
   be) often set about practice in their own way by trying to incorporate
   new lexis and grammar (if we can be permitted to separate the two for a
   moment); but if you want to try some more drillish type practice
   activities, then I don't think that dogme really needs to be inventive.
   Students can be asked to write X examples of the structure that are true
   about their thoughts and feelings and experiences. These can then
   provide interesting platforms from which to launch discussions in future
   classes.

   Diarmuid




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Emma,

thank you very much for your kind response.


Some thoughts ... ( I am going to repeat myself, so, those around here long
enough might as well just skip this. /Flame shield: Nominal/ )


Besides running my own (small) school, I volunteer at a community center in one
of the poorest slums of my city, in South Brazil.

There, the kids can only but dream about most of the technology that is The
Trend of the Moment.


What brought me to this group, in the first place (5 or 6 years ago), was
exactly the idea expressed in the concept of materials-light ( since I didn't
have much, to start with ) and the focus on emergent language was something I
could relate to. In fact, I recognized immediately that I had been going Dogme
for a while then. It just didn't have a name.

I had hoped, and thanks to Rob ( and others who apparently no longer bother to
write to this group [maybe they're active in the secret list... ;- )] )  I did
find great examples, ideas, and most of all, inspired ( and inspiring ) accounts
of memorable classes, very much like your first ( and subsequent ) contribution
to this list.


That was  then.



However, things change...

For quite a while now, the discussions in this group have been focused
("hijacked" ?), as you pointed right on, "whether one who 'follows' the dogme
approach [...] should make that choice [incorporate tech into our lessons] or
not." , which , IMHO, simply ( and grossly ) ignores the fact that the majority
of teachers around the world ( and this IS an INTERNATIONAL forum ) just DO NOT
HAVE that choice!


Now, what really gets to me is the PREACHING....


as if IT [tech gadgetry] were the Salvation of Humankind ...

as if, without it, we're all cavemen ( as it was implied  by one of the "gurus",
not long ago) ...

as if, without it, we're doomed luddites, who "should crawl back under a rock"
(as the emeritus PhD reminded us, also not so long ago) ...


as if.....


C'mon, gimme a break...



Anyway, Emma, your contribution has come as a ray of light ( and hope ), and I,
once again, thank you very much for that !


Yours truly.


Celso






From: emmaherrod
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 3:27 PM
To: dogme@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dogme] Re: Grammar or technology? Back to the classroom, please ;-)



Hi Celso

You are absolutely right with your point about not actually HAVING the
technology to make a choice.
The general discussion regarding the employment of technology in the classroom
however, in relation to the dogme approach, has been whether dogme is able to
accommodate technology and whether we are in some way selling out if we
incorporate tech into our lessons. In this way, the discussion has as far as I
can see, been focussed whether one who 'follows' the dogme approach (without
wanting it to come across too much like a cult) should make that choice or not.

If you do not have the technology in place, there is not a lot you can do about
whether you should employ it or not.

May I just add here that I worked for two years for a language school in London,
who until BC inspection loomed, didn't even have a whiteboard or clock in each
room. We relied 100% on paper and pens. No computers, no IWBs - just us and the
students. Baptism of fire and good experience, but in that situation there was
simply no debate. That's how they worked and I had to deal with it if I wanted
the job! I therefore don't come at this discussion from any higher ground,
rather I agree with your comment, but do question how relevant it is in the
dogme and technology discussion.

Would like to hear your thoughts :)
Emma

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, "Celso Camargo" <celsocamargors@...> wrote:
>
> "1. One agrees that technology is important, influential and here to stay. I
don't restrict this to ELT by the way. It just is! Based on this:
>
> 2a. You choose to use technology in your classroom.
>
> 2b. You choose not to use technology in the classroom."
>
>
> This observation would be more complete if:
>
>
> 2c. You DON'T HAVE/can't afford the technology in your classroom. ( NOT a
question of CHOICE, I'm afraid.)
>
>
>
> I don't think one should have to "crawl back under a rock" (as some erudite
PhD was quoted in this list, not long ago) , just because one simply does NOT
HAVE these wonderful resources.
>
>
>
> But I do believe one can go "back to basics" and actually implement a
"pedagogy of bare essentials", ...
>
> after all, it's all we got, around here. Barely.
>
>
>
> Celso


.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think dogme deals with consolidation by continuing to use the language ;-P.
The idea behind emergentism is that through use, everything gets uncovered. So,
keep using.

As mentioned earlier, consolidation can happen despite distance by making good
use of technology. Blogs, emails, voicemails, and the myriad of Web 2.0
applications that are there for the stealing. They also help the student feel
reassured by making them see that their teacher keeps them in mind between
classes.

Homework such as, "trawl around and see if you can find ten different examples
of what we have been looking at" also provides opportunities for consolidation.I
think keen language learners (as Kamilla seems to be) often set about practice
in their own way by trying to incorporate new lexis and grammar (if we can be
permitted to separate the two for a moment); but if you want to try some more
drillish type practice activities, then I don't think that dogme really needs to
be inventive. Students can be asked to write X examples of the structure that
are true about their thoughts and feelings and experiences. These can then
provide interesting platforms from which to launch discussions in future
classes.


Diarmuid

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Leys <bruno.leys@...> wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who has the impression that quite a lot of us like
> to focus on (in Dogme-history terms) age-old bones of contention
> grammar and technology.

Bruno
Thanks for your posting, but I think you've misunderstood why these things come
up - that is certainly true in my case.

I don't get involved in these debates in order to fight the battle and take
prisoners. I get involved largely to uncover my own views and opinions and to
test them in the crucible. My recent involvement in the technology debate was
because I was trying to reconcile my doubts and concerns with the fact that
technology is so heavily promoted.

Both grammar and technology have the power to become very isolating tools. The
(bad) teacher can hide behind technology and limit the amount of non-virtual
interaction that students do; the (bad) teacher can wield grammar like a weapon
of knowledge that s/he is only prepared to share with students if they
cooperate. Alternatively, grammar can be used to humiliate people.

At a surface level, perhaps not many people think of technology/grammar as such
things. Which is why I think that they have their place on the dogme list from
time to time. I think of the list as more of a cerebral staffroom. It's great to
have somebody walk through the door and tell us of a class that went well (or
badly), but there's room for all types of debate.

From time to time, people try to stifle a discussion that they think has run its
course or is inappropriate or, quite simply, that doesn't interest them. Perhaps
we should call for clarity in subject headings to help people decide what to
read; perhaps people could check the postings on the web rather than have them
invade their inbox. There are alternatives. We can let ten thousand flowers
bloom.

Rob, your answers are so kind and encouraging.  I came to teaching as I said
relatively recently (the last couple of years).  Prior to that I had been a
language learner myself having lived in Munich and done a BA and MA in German
Language in Literature (University of London).  I therefore find the 'academic',
for want of a better word', very compelling and I have a slight element of
regret that I didn't come to the field sooner, so rewarding and satisfying that
it is.  I also remember all too clearly what it's like to be on the other side
of the desk.

But here I am, and honestly, responses like yours *oh and the students of
course* make it all worth while.  It's refreshing to meet people who are
genuinely interested and share their knowledge in a respectful and unpatronising
way.  thank-you.

I shall look at your suggestions in more detail for the next lesson and get back
to you.

Very best wishes,

emma



--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Robert Haines <hainesrm@...> wrote:
>
> Emma, thank you for sharing your lesson with us! Posts like yours are
> the stuff of wonderful discussions about Teaching Unplugged.
>
> You ask: "Any thoughts on how dogme deals with consolidation and
> practice?"
>
> As I remember, you have a copy of Scott and Luke's book. I would
> consult the appropriate sections in addition to the feedback you
> receive here on the list. I'm sure you've thought of that already. I'd
> like to comment on the lesson as you've described it:
>
> "I opened the lesson again with our graph about our week. My week had
> been kind of shocking on this occasion and in the spirit of
> authenticity, out it came *with some editing*. "
>
> Good that you share something about yourself. What if you had let
> Kamilla open the lesson?
>
> "We had talked last week about how we describe different parts of the
> day, such as "mid-morning", "late-afternoon" etc. Just to check if
> she'd remembered, I drew some ad hoc clock faces on a sheet of paper
> with some various times. She got most of them right actually."
>
> Why did you choose to test Kamilla this way? Do you think she
> experienced it as a test? What was her reaction?
>
> "I then asked her what she's usually doing at these times of the day.
> 'I tend to get into work at around 9am' woo-hoo! So she was now
> producing, correctly and seemingly naturally the language point which
> emerged a couple of weeks before."
>
> I liked reading this, and it seemed like the most dogmetic part of the
> time together.
>
> "We continued talking and as she talked about what time she leaves
> work but this Friday had been different. Her boss had joked with her
> about why she was staying late. She said 'he said to me 'if you would
> not looked at the internet for so long, you will be ready to leave on
> time'. Then later when talking about a letter she'd been writing 'if I
> knew they are charging me so much, I didn't go there'. Does a girl
> need much more of an incentive to introduce the third conditional? So
> that's what we did. Emerging language and grammar and it felt good :)"
>
> It felt good - that's important. What if you had scaffolded instead of
> introducing the a grammar point (the third conditional)? Would that
> have allowed for more conversation and emergent language?
>
> I know it's hard to describe a lesson, and I know that it doesn't make
> it any easier when someone goes over every detail with a fine-toothed
> comb. I hope this doesn't discourage you or anyone else from sharing
> future experiences. I sincerely provide this feedback in a spirit of
> collegiality and with the understanding that I, you, all of us are
> always learning and working to do the best we can given our personal
> and professional obligations, constraints, aspirations, etc. Look back
> at the lessons I've posted here and you'll find plenty of slips,
> mishaps... and some good stuff, too, I think.
>
>   In other words, Emma, I find Dogme in your work with Kamilla, and I
> look forward to reading more.
>
> Thanks again!
> Rob
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Emma, thank you for sharing your lesson with us! Posts like yours are
the stuff of wonderful discussions about Teaching Unplugged.

You ask: "Any thoughts on how dogme deals with consolidation and
practice?"

As I remember, you have a copy of Scott and Luke's book. I would
consult the appropriate sections in addition to the feedback you
receive here on the list. I'm sure you've thought of that already. I'd
like to comment on the lesson as you've described it:

"I opened the lesson again with our graph about our week. My week had
been kind of shocking on this occasion and in the spirit of
authenticity, out it came *with some editing*. "

Good that you share something about yourself. What if you had let
Kamilla open the lesson?

"We had talked last week about how we describe different parts of the
day, such as "mid-morning", "late-afternoon" etc. Just to check if
she'd remembered, I drew some ad hoc clock faces on a sheet of paper
with some various times. She got most of them right actually."

Why did you choose to test Kamilla this way? Do you think she
experienced it as a test? What was her reaction?

"I then asked her what she's usually doing at these times of the day.
'I tend to get into work at around 9am' woo-hoo! So she was now
producing, correctly and seemingly naturally the language point which
emerged a couple of weeks before."

I liked reading this, and it seemed like the most dogmetic part of the
time together.

"We continued talking and as she talked about what time she leaves
work but this Friday had been different. Her boss had joked with her
about why she was staying late. She said 'he said to me 'if you would
not looked at the internet for so long, you will be ready to leave on
time'. Then later when talking about a letter she'd been writing 'if I
knew they are charging me so much, I didn't go there'. Does a girl
need much more of an incentive to introduce the third conditional? So
that's what we did. Emerging language and grammar and it felt good :)"

It felt good - that's important. What if you had scaffolded instead of
introducing the a grammar point (the third conditional)? Would that
have allowed for more conversation and emergent language?

I know it's hard to describe a lesson, and I know that it doesn't make
it any easier when someone goes over every detail with a fine-toothed
comb. I hope this doesn't discourage you or anyone else from sharing
future experiences. I sincerely provide this feedback in a spirit of
collegiality and with the understanding that I, you, all of us are
always learning and working to do the best we can given our personal
and professional obligations, constraints, aspirations, etc. Look back
at the lessons I've posted here and you'll find plenty of slips,
mishaps... and some good stuff, too, I think.

   In other words, Emma, I find Dogme in your work with Kamilla, and I
look forward to reading more.

Thanks again!
Rob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all,

I just thought I'd post a short update since my lesson with Kamila on Tuesday. 
There was one of THOSE moments of understanding on both our parts.

I opened the lesson again with our graph about our week.  My week had been kind
of shocking on this occasion and in the spirit of authenticity, out it came
*with some editing*.

We had talked last week about how we describe different parts of the day, such
as "mid-morning", "late-afternoon" etc.  Just to check if she'd remembered, I
drew some ad hoc clock faces on a sheet of paper with some various times.  She
got most of them right actually. I then asked her what she's usually doing at
these times of the day.  "I tend to get into work at around 9am" woo-hoo!  So
she was now producing, correctly and seemingly naturally the language point
which emerged a couple of weeks before.

We continued talking and as she talked about what time she leaves work  but this
Friday had been different.  Her boss had joked with her about  why she was
staying late.  She said "he said to me 'if you would not looked at the internet
for so long, you will be ready to leave on time'".  Then later when talking
about a letter she'd been writing "if I knew they are charging me so much, I
didn't go there".  Does a girl need much more of an incentive to introduce the
third conditional? So that's what we did.  Emerging language and grammar and it
felt good :)

Thought I'd share.  I think next week I will do some kind of consolidation ex -
or maybe just let it happen again.  These two examples came up in just one hour
so I'm sure it won't be long but it needs practice too.  Any thoughts on how
dogme deals with consolidation and practice?

Best wishes (again)
Emma

Here's a sample of the kind of papers I read for my research, Darren.
You won't find my dissertation in the files section, but I'd be happy
to send it to you off-list.


Here are abstracts (stop rolling your eyes, Dennis) of two papers of
interest in this area. Sorry, both are restricted to academic circles
(ie you need to pay to play).
"Vygotsky's `zone of proximal development (ZPD)' has become associated
with the individual `scaffolding' of learners. As a result, because
teachers need to teach the whole class, many public school teachers
have had to dismiss the concept as unworkable. Yet Vygotsky himself
was chiefly concerned with public school teaching and firmly rejected
the idea of a `pedagogical duet' between learner and teacher. He also
dismissed the teacher who attempted to provide the ensemble of
learning content by him or herself as a `rickshaw puller', arguing
instead that a teacher should be a `tram driver', who organizes the
social environment of learning. One way in which the teacher might do
this is by mediating a learning task for a single learner or a group
of learners, who then mediate the task for their classmates in group-
work. We present evidence that in this situation the way in which
learners mediate tasks differs from the way in which teachers do, and
argue that this suggests learner-to-learner mediation is in important
ways closer to what Vygotsky termed `internalization'. We believe that
T-S and S-S interactional mediation do not create two different ZPDs
but may instead lie within a single, whole class ZPD."



That's at http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/3/281 from
David Kellogg (formerly known as dk on this list)



And this is from Celeste Kinginger at
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/240



"The focus of this article is the interpretation of Vygotsky's Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) for foreign language teaching in the USA.
This problem is taken to exemplify the effect of long-standing
tensions between progressive and conservative stakeholders in
educational processes. As the construct gains in prominence, it is
claimed by the progressives and conservatives alike, who shape the
contours of its meaning according to their particular educational
vision. A Brief summary of the construct's origins in the writings of
Vygotsky is followed by an outline of its reception among Western
psychologists and educators, reviewing a variety of proposals for
interpreting the ZPD in teaching and in research. In the subsequent
sections, the essaycomments on progressive and conservative trends in
the US foreign language profession, and on the reception of the
construct, focusing on three cases in which the ZPD has been invoked
in recent publications on research and classroom teaching."

My sense is that the dogmetic teachers often share a more progressive
view of ZPD but have not necessarily been exposed to a "third way" of
understanding Vygotsky's concept, which, to me, is related to Dogme
insofar as teaching/learning a la Dogme can afford an environment
where unpredictable (emergent) language and language learning
opportunities arise. So creating a zone of proximal development for
learners isn't just guiding them to the next step (traditionalist
view), indeed we really cannot know what that next step would be. At
the same time, just facilitating a conversation between students,
while a bit more like it, won't in and of itself crate a zpd either.
so we teachers are important after all? Yes, I say, if we know when to
intervene and when to step back. This approach requires intuition (as
Scott mentions in the video interview with you, Darren) and an artful
response to the demands of classroom management.

Rob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Celso

You are absolutely right with your point about not actually HAVING the
technology to make a choice.
The general discussion regarding the employment of technology in the classroom
however, in relation to the dogme approach, has been whether dogme is able to
accommodate technology and whether we are in some way selling out if we
incorporate tech into our lessons.  In this way, the discussion has as far as I
can see, been focussed whether one who 'follows' the dogme approach (without
wanting it to come across too much like a cult) should make that choice or not.

If you do not have the technology in place, there is not a lot you can do about
whether you should employ it or not.

May I just add here that I worked for two years for a language school in London,
who until BC inspection loomed, didn't even have a whiteboard or clock in each
room.  We relied 100% on paper and pens.  No computers, no IWBs - just us and
the students.  Baptism of fire and good experience, but in that  situation there
was simply no debate.  That's how they worked and I had to deal with it if I
wanted the job!  I therefore don't come at this discussion from any higher
ground, rather I agree with your comment, but do question how relevant it is in
the dogme and technology discussion.

Would like to hear your thoughts :)
Emma

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, "Celso Camargo" <celsocamargors@...> wrote:
>
> "1. One agrees that technology is important, influential and here to stay. I
don't restrict this to ELT by the way. It just is! Based on this:
>
> 2a. You choose to use technology in your classroom.
>
> 2b. You choose not to use technology in the classroom."
>
>
> This observation would be more complete if:
>
>
> 2c. You DON'T HAVE/can't afford the technology in your classroom. ( NOT a
question  of CHOICE, I'm afraid.)
>
>
>
> I don't think one should have to "crawl back under a rock" (as some erudite
PhD  was quoted in this list, not long ago) , just because one simply does NOT
HAVE these wonderful resources.
>
>
>
> But I do believe one can go "back to basics" and actually implement a
"pedagogy of bare essentials", ...
>
> after all, it's all we got, around here.  Barely.
>
>
>
> Celso
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

"1. One agrees that technology is important, influential and here to stay. I
don't restrict this to ELT by the way. It just is! Based on this:

2a. You choose to use technology in your classroom.

2b. You choose not to use technology in the classroom."


This observation would be more complete if:


2c. You DON'T HAVE/can't afford the technology in your classroom. ( NOT a
question  of CHOICE, I'm afraid.)



I don't think one should have to "crawl back under a rock" (as some erudite PhD 
was quoted in this list, not long ago) , just because one simply does NOT HAVE
these wonderful resources.



But I do believe one can go "back to basics" and actually implement a "pedagogy
of bare essentials", ...

after all, it's all we got, around here.  Barely.



Celso


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for your posting Emma and I am on your side about technology
options. The whole issue is a bit of "much ado about nothing".

I will indeed try to make sure in Monday's session that my trainee
teachers don't only share problems, but can also monitor and tutor
each other. Wonder were that will leave me ;-)

Bruno

Quoting emmaherrod <emma.herrod@...>:

> Hi Bruno,
>
> Thanks very much for your comment regarding my earlier posting.  I'm
>  glad you felt it a worthwhile addition to the dogme discussion.
>
> Firstly, if I may address your comment first: "quite a lot of us
> like to focus on age-old bones of contention, grammar and technology".
> Perhaps you're right, I can obviously only speak for myself.  I am
> with you on the grammar, but not on the technology I'm afraid.
> Without wishing to string out what has already been said do you not
> think the tech side of thing comes down to a few simple points:
>
> 1.  One agrees that technology is important, influential and here to
>  stay.  I don't restrict this to ELT by the way.  It just is!  Based
>  on this:
>
> 2a.  You choose to use technology in your classroom.
>
> 2b.  You choose not to use technology in the classroom.
>
> Assuming you agree with 1, does it actually matter which option 2
> you go with as long as (from a dogme perspective - as that is the
> direction we are coming from on this board) your motivation for
> doing so is pedagogically and student-centred and you're using it
> (or not) to promote conversation/emergent language and not merely
> for the sake of it? I apologise in advance if my question seems
> ignorant, but does it actually get a great deal more complicated
> than this?  We can debate of course about the effectiveness of
> various 'technologies' in the classroom, but as for the initial
> question of 'if', this really is pretty simple is it not?
>
> Following on from this, I do believe a stubborn unwillingness to
> embrace any technology at all, just for the sake of it, can be as
> damaging as running with every new technological advancement purely
> to be, or to be seen as 'technological'.  I myself incidentally
> consider myself to be a gadget whore :) *no comments from any of
> you!*  I've worked with teachers who thought my taking a laptop into
>  a lesson, made me somehow in league with Satan.  I have no trouble
> with anti-technology, but give me an argument, tell me why you think
>  it so, let's discuss it, rather than dismissing it because you
> don't  understand/fear it/don't like change.  That isn't meant at
> anyone in  particular here, just venting a previous experience in
> context.
>
> So Bruno, to your future lesson.  I think it sounds very engaging
> and certainly will produce a host of emergent language with which
> you can work.  I would love to hear what language they come out
> with.  If it were my own lesson, I might also allow them a chance to
>  help each other with any problems, difficulties or situations which
>  they encountered during their teaching posts.  Did anyone else have
>  this issue?  How did they deal with it? What could their peers
> recommend?  This could be a real golden moment if the students are
> forthcoming with their language and get involved in the discussion
> with each other.  I love the idea of 'caring and sharing sessions'.
>  Perhaps don't feel you have to do all the work yourself.  "Let it
> run" as I read somewhere (:)).
>
> Looking forward to hearing how it goes.
>
> Best wishes,
> Emma
>
> --- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Leys <bruno.leys@...> wrote:
>>
>> Am I the only one who has the impression that quite a lot of us like
>> to focus on (in Dogme-history terms) age-old bones of contention
>> grammar and technology.
>>
>> The thing is that over the years I have not seen many (if any)
>> believers and non-believers switch sides. In my (humble) opinion this
>> is mainly because too often this is a discussion on principles instead
>> of one on actual practice.
>>
>> Emma's "Sharing my recent Dogme experiences" was such a relief as it
>> brought actual teaching practice back into the story.
>>
>> I will try to do the same in a Dogme Teacher training approach idea:
>>
>> On Monday my third year trainee-teachers return to the college after a
>> three-week training period in a secondary school. I have always tried
>> to come to a discussion of their experiences, as I strongly believe in
>> these "caring and sharing" sessions.
>> Reading through some of the activities with Post-it notes in 'Teaching
>> Unplugged' gave me the following idea:
>> I will ask every student to write down two words (one on each page)
>> that they associate with their training experiences. One word should
>> clearly refer to a positive moment or experiences, the other to a
>> less-positive/not sure whether it's positive/ or even negative
>> experience. The two pages look identical and do not reveal whether the
>> word refers to a "high" / "up" moment or not.
>> I will then gather their pages and spread them over the classroom.
>> The students get two Post-it notes each on which they write their name
>> and can then walk round, read the words and stick their names next to
>> two words (not their own) that they can also relate to.
>> A discussion of the words on the pages will then follow.
>> - Why did you stick your name here?
>> - Why do you think there are so many/little names around this word?
>> - Was this a positive or a negative experiences? Was that the same for
>> everyone?
>> - ...
>>
>> I will keep you informed on how it went.
>>
>> best regards
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> Quoting Dennis Newson <djn@...>:
>>
>> > The discussion of the role of grammar in LT boring? I'd say it is central.
>> >
>> > Dennis
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruno Leys
>> docent Engels en vakdidactiek Engels
>> KHBO - departement lerarenopleiding - BASO
>> tel.: 0477/856706
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>
>
>
>



--
Bruno Leys
docent Engels en vakdidactiek Engels
KHBO - departement lerarenopleiding - BASO
tel.: 0477/856706

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Hi Bruno,

Thanks very much for your comment regarding my earlier posting.  I'm glad you
felt it a worthwhile addition to the dogme discussion.

Firstly, if I may address your comment first: "quite a lot of us like to focus
on age-old bones of contention, grammar and technology".
Perhaps you're right, I can obviously only speak for myself.  I am with you on
the grammar, but not on the technology I'm afraid.  Without wishing to string
out what has already been said do you not think the tech side of thing comes
down to a few simple points:

1.  One agrees that technology is important, influential and here to stay.  I
don't restrict this to ELT by the way.  It just is!  Based on this:

2a.  You choose to use technology in your classroom.

2b.  You choose not to use technology in the classroom.

Assuming you agree with 1, does it actually matter which option 2 you go with as
long as (from a dogme perspective - as that is the direction we are coming from
on this board) your motivation for doing so is pedagogically and student-centred
and you're using it (or not) to promote conversation/emergent language and not
merely for the sake of it? I apologise in advance if my question seems ignorant,
but does it actually get a great deal more complicated than this?  We can debate
of course about the effectiveness of various 'technologies' in the classroom,
but as for the initial question of 'if', this really is pretty simple is it not?

Following on from this, I do believe a stubborn unwillingness to embrace any
technology at all, just for the sake of it, can be as damaging as running with
every new technological advancement purely to be, or to be seen as
'technological'.  I myself incidentally consider myself to be a gadget whore :)
*no comments from any of you!*  I've worked with teachers who thought my taking
a laptop into a lesson, made me somehow in league with Satan.  I have no trouble
with anti-technology, but give me an argument, tell me why you think it so,
let's discuss it, rather than dismissing it because you don't understand/fear
it/don't like change.  That isn't meant at anyone in particular here, just
venting a previous experience in context.

So Bruno, to your future lesson.  I think it sounds very engaging and certainly
will produce a host of emergent language with which you can work.  I would love
to hear what language they come out with.  If it were my own lesson, I might
also allow them a chance to help each other with any problems, difficulties or
situations which they encountered during their teaching posts.  Did anyone else
have this issue?  How did they deal with it? What could their peers recommend? 
This could be a real golden moment if the students are forthcoming with their
language and get involved in the discussion with each other.  I love the idea of
'caring and sharing sessions'.  Perhaps don't feel you have to do all the work
yourself.  "Let it run" as I read somewhere (:)).

Looking forward to hearing how it goes.

Best wishes,
Emma

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Leys <bruno.leys@...> wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who has the impression that quite a lot of us like
> to focus on (in Dogme-history terms) age-old bones of contention
> grammar and technology.
>
> The thing is that over the years I have not seen many (if any)
> believers and non-believers switch sides. In my (humble) opinion this
> is mainly because too often this is a discussion on principles instead
> of one on actual practice.
>
> Emma's "Sharing my recent Dogme experiences" was such a relief as it
> brought actual teaching practice back into the story.
>
> I will try to do the same in a Dogme Teacher training approach idea:
>
> On Monday my third year trainee-teachers return to the college after a
> three-week training period in a secondary school. I have always tried
> to come to a discussion of their experiences, as I strongly believe in
> these "caring and sharing" sessions.
> Reading through some of the activities with Post-it notes in 'Teaching
> Unplugged' gave me the following idea:
> I will ask every student to write down two words (one on each page)
> that they associate with their training experiences. One word should
> clearly refer to a positive moment or experiences, the other to a
> less-positive/not sure whether it's positive/ or even negative
> experience. The two pages look identical and do not reveal whether the
> word refers to a "high" / "up" moment or not.
> I will then gather their pages and spread them over the classroom.
> The students get two Post-it notes each on which they write their name
> and can then walk round, read the words and stick their names next to
> two words (not their own) that they can also relate to.
> A discussion of the words on the pages will then follow.
> - Why did you stick your name here?
> - Why do you think there are so many/little names around this word?
> - Was this a positive or a negative experiences? Was that the same for
> everyone?
> - ...
>
> I will keep you informed on how it went.
>
> best regards
> Bruno
>
>
> Quoting Dennis Newson <djn@...>:
>
> > The discussion of the role of grammar in LT boring? I'd say it is central.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Bruno Leys
> docent Engels en vakdidactiek Engels
> KHBO - departement lerarenopleiding - BASO
> tel.: 0477/856706
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>

Bruno and Celso,

With you in spirit on that one, and Rob, Diarmuid and I hope in the not too
distant future to be posting an account of a lesson (or two) in SL.


Dennis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Bruno, for bringing  "actual teaching practice back into the story."


Celso


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Am I the only one who has the impression that quite a lot of us like
to focus on (in Dogme-history terms) age-old bones of contention
grammar and technology.

The thing is that over the years I have not seen many (if any)
believers and non-believers switch sides. In my (humble) opinion this
is mainly because too often this is a discussion on principles instead
of one on actual practice.

Emma's "Sharing my recent Dogme experiences" was such a relief as it
brought actual teaching practice back into the story.

I will try to do the same in a Dogme Teacher training approach idea:

On Monday my third year trainee-teachers return to the college after a
three-week training period in a secondary school. I have always tried
to come to a discussion of their experiences, as I strongly believe in
these "caring and sharing" sessions.
Reading through some of the activities with Post-it notes in 'Teaching
Unplugged' gave me the following idea:
I will ask every student to write down two words (one on each page)
that they associate with their training experiences. One word should
clearly refer to a positive moment or experiences, the other to a
less-positive/not sure whether it's positive/ or even negative
experience. The two pages look identical and do not reveal whether the
word refers to a "high" / "up" moment or not.
I will then gather their pages and spread them over the classroom.
The students get two Post-it notes each on which they write their name
and can then walk round, read the words and stick their names next to
two words (not their own) that they can also relate to.
A discussion of the words on the pages will then follow.
- Why did you stick your name here?
- Why do you think there are so many/little names around this word?
- Was this a positive or a negative experiences? Was that the same for
everyone?
- ...

I will keep you informed on how it went.

best regards
Bruno


Quoting Dennis Newson <djn@...>:

> The discussion of the role of grammar in LT boring? I'd say it is central.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



--
Bruno Leys
docent Engels en vakdidactiek Engels
KHBO - departement lerarenopleiding - BASO
tel.: 0477/856706

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Rob,

Since the ZPD theory would seem to be a something which scaffolds dogme's
existence, I'd say this topic can have a lot of mileage on this list.

In my own teaching an awareness ofit has made me feel more positive about being
a teacher who talks, rather than one who merely facilitates from outside. Does
this chime with others here?

As a language learner I have started to recognise its role in pushing me up a
gear when I interact with people. This is something that I am aware of
particularly in face to face stuff, but more recently through new technologies
like email and twitter.

I'd like to hear more about the ZPD as a unifying theory of learning. Could your
research be available in the files section too?

Nick

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Robert Haines <hainesrm@...> wrote:
>
> Would much rather carry on *with* you here, Darren. Lantolf's pencil
> analogy reminds me of my work researching just what Vygotsky
> understood the ZPD to be. If you're interested, you should look at the
> more radical (or are they) of what ZPD should mean to education. In a
> nutshell, we educators have appropriated the ZPD theory for our own
> political purposes: traditional educators want it to mean we teach
> students step by step while more progressive minds find it to mean we
> emphasize the social aspect of learning. But it's possible there is
> more to the ZPD, a sort of Unifying Theory of Learning if you will.
>
> We can discuss this - no technology necessary - if you like. If not,
> no worries either.
>
> Rob
>

zpd,

That will be marvellous!  I'm just about to starting writing to Rob about
this experiment, and I will copy to you.

My place, the door is always open is  at:

http://slurl.com/secondlife/EduNation%20III/174/230/22



I'm looking forward to this.

Dennis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The discussion of the role of grammar in LT boring? I'd say it is central.

Dennis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Of course not, Gavin. :-)   Your public response to my idle question is
totally appropriate.

Dennis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dennis,

You seriously think I'm going to reveal who Monsieur Lapin is here on a public
list???

I should say not...

Gavin

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Newson <djn@...> wrote:
I've a suspicion that the SL rabbit is a well-know EFL person. Perhaps Gavin
knows.

Darren is very gracious in his acceptance of criticism and stands all the taller
for it. In a spirit of rapprochement, I would be interested to read more and
discuss more about Lantolf's view of Vygotskian theory (although we run the risk
of reawakening the boring argument about the role of grammar in language
learning;-P)

If a third teacher is required, now that I have a more compliant firewall, you
can also count on Acraton Cascarino, although I DON'T know the way to Dennis's
villa and may be persona non grata there, for all I know.

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Robert Haines <hainesrm@...> wrote:
>
> "Come on, Rob. Let's do a Dogme together in SL. I'l look after the SL
> end and we'll discuss the forthcoming lesson in the gardens I created
> for Dogme - Dogme Gardens. (Being Dogme, we cannot plan it.) It would
> be great fun, and I reckon a lot of people would be interested. You
> know the way to my SL villa.
>
> The gauntlet is down."
>
> Dennis, the F(faff)-factor is high when I attempt tp maneuver my
> avatar through SL. But I am willing to experiment with a Dogme lesson
> in SL under the heading: If nobody else is gonna do it...
>
> Rob
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Would much rather carry on *with* you here, Darren. Lantolf's pencil
analogy reminds me of my work researching just what Vygotsky
understood the ZPD to be. If you're interested, you should look at the
more radical (or are they) of what ZPD should mean to education. In a
nutshell, we educators have appropriated the ZPD theory for our own
political purposes: traditional educators want it to mean we teach
students step by step while more progressive minds find it to mean we
emphasize the social aspect of learning. But it's possible there is
more to the ZPD, a sort of Unifying Theory of Learning if you will.

We can discuss this - no technology necessary - if you like. If not,
no worries either.

Rob

Thanks for the feedback everyone ... it seems to have centred, as so often, on
the technology aspect. I was rather flippant to reduce the issue to such
simplistic terms - Diarmuid is right to call me on it. I refered to James
Lantolf's plenary at the conference in the interview, and I'll refer to it again
here as it made rather an impression on me. Lantolf's theme (at least,
partially) was that we limit ourselves through our metaphors. He used the pencil
as an example of dialectic metaphor - two aspects (the lead and the eraser) that
unite and compliment one another. However, we all too often create dichotomies
in our academic discourse - nature vs. nuture, for example. My "Geeks vs.
Luddites" question fell into that trap. Personally, I've got all that I can out
of that discussion and I think that came across in the laziness of the question.
But I'm sure it can go on just fine without me....

Cheers!

Darren


--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, "darren" <darrenrelliott@...> wrote:
>
> I was lucky enough to catch Scott at the JALT conference last weekend and he
kindly spared me half an hour or so for an interview. As usual, he has a lot of
interesting things to say...
>
> http://www.livesofteachers.com/2009/11/23/an-interview-with-scott-thornbury/
>
> Cheers!
>
> Darren Elliott
> Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan
>

Nick,

I've a suspicion that the SL rabbit is a well-know EFL person. Perhaps Gavin
knows.

Dennis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dennis,

Is the rabbit a learner or teacher of English?

Would he be interested in getting together with our pet rabbit, Daisy who is
rather lonely and keeps escaping to her own 'second life' among our neighbours'
cabbages?

Nick

--- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Newson <djn@...> wrote:
>
>>
> An offshoot of EVO earlier this year is the group I founded, Osnagroup. It's
> present membership is:
>
> 10 men plus one rabbit, which is also male, I believe
> 14 women from:
>
> Abu Dhabi, France, Poland, Venezuela, Germany, Turkey, Croatia, Japan,
> India, Greece, Italy, Argentina, Bulgaria, New Zealand
>
>