I was struck by Scott's  quoted remark:

" there are some  learners, at least, for whom  language learning is a
spectator sport".

I am just back from being a mentor, facilitator, trainer, observer,
handout writer - whatever - at a 6-week intensive EFL course for
military personnel in the MOD English Language Centre, Sarajevo.
One thing I did was to video a number of short interviews (hand-held
camera, camerman as interviewer) as one method of getting student
feedback.

In a room called the sitting-room, where students met in groups of
six to talk about anything and everything with a teacher, one student,
on camera, said something like the following. (I'm quoting from
memory - I left the tape in Sarajevo. There seems to be no point in
reproducing here the unimportant inaccuracies of usage. The message
was clear enough.)

"I have a problem. The problem is inside me. In Bosnian, too, I am a
very quiet person. I don't talk much. But I very much enjoy listening
to people. It is the same in English."

As a matter of fact Ellis in his "Learning a Second Language Through
Interaction", John Benjamins, 1999 ISBN 90 272 4125 2 (Europe)
reports as follows on the findings of research into acquisition of
word meaning  (in the sort of language that will thrill all members of
this list):

"Comprehension, however, does not depend on active negotiation; L2
learners who do not negotiate can benefit from the modified input
obtained for them by learners who do negotiate." (p.112)


Dennis

Dennis (Newson)
Formerly University of Osnabrueck
GERMANY
www.dennisnewson.de

A reply to Adrian:

Thanks for the response Adrian.

One thing I want to clarify: when I referred to " ... 'inconvenient'
student attitudes", I wasn't blaming the students for anything
(hence the inverted commas around inconvenient).  I only wanted to
acknowledge that students' belief systems sometimes conflict with
what teachers want to do and that this is a fact (no criticism of
students), a reality that needs to be taken into account of when I
go into the classroom; for me it's a factor which influences the
success (or not) and effectiveness of any classroom procedure.

If you have no problem selling dogme to your groups, fair enough. I
think my students need more some winning over, and I need more
ideas.  I think this is at least partly what Dan was saying.

Anyway, on we go.

Jon Butt


> A reply to Jon Butt,
>
> Hi John, our paths cross again!
>
> I too understand the frustration an has been feeling, but I think that
> saying that it is student attitudes against/towards Dogme are negative
> is like a workman blaming his tools - if you'll excuse the analogy.
> I work in a place where we have continual enrollment and I have had no
> real problems 'selling' Dogme to my groups. I was very skeptical at
> first but I made certain it didn't show. I also went full out, and
> adopted an extreme Dogme posture.
> This is the second point I wish to raise. Years ago I found myself
> struggling with TTT (a now outdated concept - it should be QTT that we
> strive for, and this would fit far more comfortably with Dogme) and I
> lost my voice for 3 days. I didn't stop teaching, I struggled on even
> with my YL groups, and I learnt the hard way.
> I took the same approach with Dogme (Scott, and everyone else in
> Brighton, may well remember my criticisms) deciding I could only be
> critical if I tried it - all or nothing. I think it is far
> better/easier/more productive/educational to start from the extreme end
> of the Dogme spectrum and then move back towards materials, books, and
> all the other paraphernalia than to slowly move towards Dogme.
> But, finally, the need again to stress that Dogme (unplugged) is not
> about material free teaching - I'm still very concerned that many people
> seem to be missing the point! Or is it me???
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> Jon Butt wrote:
> >
> > To:                     "Dogme" <dogme@yahoogroups.com>
> > From:                   "Dan and Male" <maledan@...>
> > Date sent:              Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:45:03 +0100
> > Send reply to:          dogme@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject:                [dogme] From die hard recruit to disilluusioned
lurker
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > This is my first contribution to the group, which I have been
> > following for some time now.
> >
> > I think Dan's statement of disillusionment is a useful focussing
> > point for the group.  It makes complete sense to me and I'm sure
> > the reservations he expresses are widely felt by other readers -
> > particularly 'ordinary' teachers who are not zealots! The group
> > hasn't yet come up with convincing practical answers for the
> > difficulties that he raises.  I am not advocating giving up though; it
> > seems to be early days to me.
> >
> > One point I would like to make is that it doesn't need to be all-or-
> > nothing.   It seems sensible to move gradually in a dogme direction
> > and stop at a point you feel comfortable with or pause along the
> > way before moving on (or back if that's how you feel).
> >
> > I say this because I sense a kind of all-or nothing pressure in the
> > group; that you can't go half way.  Perhaps it is because, as I
> > understand it, dogme is intended as a radical shift from the current
> > paradigm rather than 'a new kind of activity'.  But we don't know
> > what will happen to dogme.  It may become a full blown
> > methodology (if that's not sacrilege) in the course of time, or it
> > might remain an interesting approach - one that sits alongside
> > other approaches.
> >
> > Personally, I am happy to 'do a bit of dogme' on a regular basis.
> > And I don't expect it to completely replace what I've been doing up
> > to now (and I don't dismiss the possibility that it could).  As I do
> > more, I might see ways to be more certain it will work (the results
> > are very unpredictable at the moment), to develop variety in it (I
> > don't have enough different ways of doing it), and so on.
> >
> > I think I am on top of the philosophical debate and I would like to
> > tackle the classroom reality, which Dan has highlighted well, one
> > major aspect of which is 'inconvenient' student attitudes.
> >
> > If we want this idea to have wider appeal (not necessarily a main
> > goal perhaps) then such concerns need answers.
> >
> > I am conscious that I personally haven't provided any so far. But I
> > will write again!
> >
> > Jon Butt
> >
> > > Dear group,
> > > I've now been trying this no material method since February off and on and
I think I can't take it any further.  I have a small list of ideas of what to do
with the language but it often comes back to the same 'conversation, study the
language and start talking again' cycle which I can see
in
> > the faces of my students is often very dull and repetitive.
> > > I think the whole style depends on the students being as enthused about
the language as the teacher which is rare as most of them are much keener on
learning the rules they feel they need to speak.  Also I'm tired of battling
against the expectations of the students.  And I feel it can't
give
> > the students what they need and deserve as it depends on the teacher on
knowing the best way to explain a point and all the relevant rules and
exceptions there and then, rather than having the time to think about it and
plan before hand.  Maybe my five years of experience aren't enough but I
> > think they ought to be.
> > > So I've gone back to textbook teaching with free discussion following the
exercises as before.  The one difference is that I write down their language for
future lessons as I still firmly believe that the lesson should be based on what
the students need and not what the textbook says is
next.
> > But I have to say that the best presentation of the language is still the
textbook way as it is what the students want ; something well prepared and well
informed.
> > > People who have been on the site a while will say that this is a complete
u-turn on my behalf and they would be absolutely right.  I've tried it and as
far as I can see it doesn't work.  But at least I know I gave it a real go.
> > >
> > > With a disappointed but still open outlook,
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > p.s. Scott, I tried reformulating the conversations but it didn't work as
they ( my pre-int. students) couldn't hear what was wrong.  Perhaps the reason
they said it in th
> > e first place.  Also they couldn't remember what they said and isn't just as
artificial if I am using some reheated conversation as a conversation by some
'out of work actors'?
> > >
> >
> > Jon Butt
> > 175 Crofton Park Rd
> > London SE4 1AJ
> > Phone: 020 8690 5045
> > e-mail: jonbutt@...
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Jon Butt
175 Crofton Park Rd
London SE4 1AJ
Phone: 020 8690 5045
e-mail: jonbutt@...

Another thoughtful and provoking missive from Scott with issues to think
about in terms of both the group dynamics - how far out on the limb can
one go? (but I would like to remind people of what happened during the
inspection at my college - see previous postings) - and also the lovely
quote from the other (!) Adrian.

I'd also like to respond to Jon. I realised you weren't *blaming* the
students but I think there is something to remember here. When I wrote
my thesis for my MEd back in '94 I spent a lot of time examining student
perceptions. I found that most of the time students said what they
thought the teacher wanted to hear (unless things were really breaking
down in the class or there was amazing rapport), I think if one is
skeptical, or unsure, this transmits itself. I am not *attacking* anyone
here, simply making an observation.
Getting *real* feedback and getting students to really reflect is very
difficult. Sure, student feedback, perceptions, approval etc is
important but the real key is dialogue. I've actually had a couple of
wonderful Dogme lessons where we've discussed and argued about different
learning and teaching styles etc - Dogme has been the focus of the Dogme
lesson.

Adrian




Jon Butt wrote:
>
> A reply to Adrian:
>
> Thanks for the response Adrian.
>
> One thing I want to clarify: when I referred to " ... 'inconvenient'
> student attitudes", I wasn't blaming the students for anything
> (hence the inverted commas around inconvenient).  I only wanted to
> acknowledge that students' belief systems sometimes conflict with
> what teachers want to do and that this is a fact (no criticism of
> students), a reality that needs to be taken into account of when I
> go into the classroom; for me it's a factor which influences the
> success (or not) and effectiveness of any classroom procedure.
>
> If you have no problem selling dogme to your groups, fair enough. I
> think my students need more some winning over, and I need more
> ideas.  I think this is at least partly what Dan was saying.
>
> Anyway, on we go.
>
> Jon Butt
>
> > A reply to Jon Butt,
> >
> > Hi John, our paths cross again!
> >
> > I too understand the frustration an has been feeling, but I think that
> > saying that it is student attitudes against/towards Dogme are negative
> > is like a workman blaming his tools - if you'll excuse the analogy.
> > I work in a place where we have continual enrollment and I have had no
> > real problems 'selling' Dogme to my groups. I was very skeptical at
> > first but I made certain it didn't show. I also went full out, and
> > adopted an extreme Dogme posture.
> > This is the second point I wish to raise. Years ago I found myself
> > struggling with TTT (a now outdated concept - it should be QTT that we
> > strive for, and this would fit far more comfortably with Dogme) and I
> > lost my voice for 3 days. I didn't stop teaching, I struggled on even
> > with my YL groups, and I learnt the hard way.
> > I took the same approach with Dogme (Scott, and everyone else in
> > Brighton, may well remember my criticisms) deciding I could only be
> > critical if I tried it - all or nothing. I think it is far
> > better/easier/more productive/educational to start from the extreme end
> > of the Dogme spectrum and then move back towards materials, books, and
> > all the other paraphernalia than to slowly move towards Dogme.
> > But, finally, the need again to stress that Dogme (unplugged) is not
> > about material free teaching - I'm still very concerned that many people
> > seem to be missing the point! Or is it me???
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon Butt wrote:
> > >
> > > To:                     "Dogme" <dogme@yahoogroups.com>
> > > From:                   "Dan and Male"
<maledan@...>
> > > Date sent:              Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:45:03 +0100
> > > Send reply to:          dogme@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject:                [dogme] From die hard recruit to disilluusioned
lurker
> > >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > This is my first contribution to the group, which I have been
> > > following for some time now.
> > >
> > > I think Dan's statement of disillusionment is a useful focussing
> > > point for the group.  It makes complete sense to me and I'm sure
> > > the reservations he expresses are widely felt by other readers -
> > > particularly 'ordinary' teachers who are not zealots! The group
> > > hasn't yet come up with convincing practical answers for the
> > > difficulties that he raises.  I am not advocating giving up though; it
> > > seems to be early days to me.
> > >
> > > One point I would like to make is that it doesn't need to be all-or-
> > > nothing.   It seems sensible to move gradually in a dogme direction
> > > and stop at a point you feel comfortable with or pause along the
> > > way before moving on (or back if that's how you feel).
> > >
> > > I say this because I sense a kind of all-or nothing pressure in the
> > > group; that you can't go half way.  Perhaps it is because, as I
> > > understand it, dogme is intended as a radical shift from the current
> > > paradigm rather than 'a new kind of activity'.  But we don't know
> > > what will happen to dogme.  It may become a full blown
> > > methodology (if that's not sacrilege) in the course of time, or it
> > > might remain an interesting approach - one that sits alongside
> > > other approaches.
> > >
> > > Personally, I am happy to 'do a bit of dogme' on a regular basis.
> > > And I don't expect it to completely replace what I've been doing up
> > > to now (and I don't dismiss the possibility that it could).  As I do
> > > more, I might see ways to be more certain it will work (the results
> > > are very unpredictable at the moment), to develop variety in it (I
> > > don't have enough different ways of doing it), and so on.
> > >
> > > I think I am on top of the philosophical debate and I would like to
> > > tackle the classroom reality, which Dan has highlighted well, one
> > > major aspect of which is 'inconvenient' student attitudes.
> > >
> > > If we want this idea to have wider appeal (not necessarily a main
> > > goal perhaps) then such concerns need answers.
> > >
> > > I am conscious that I personally haven't provided any so far. But I
> > > will write again!
> > >
> > > Jon Butt
> > >
> > > > Dear group,
> > > > I've now been trying this no material method since February off and on
and I think I can't take it any further.  I have a small list of ideas of what
to do with the language but it often comes back to the same 'conversation, study
the language and start talking again' cycle which I can see
> in
> > > the faces of my students is often very dull and repetitive.
> > > > I think the whole style depends on the students being as enthused about
the language as the teacher which is rare as most of them are much keener on
learning the rules they feel they need to speak.  Also I'm tired of battling
against the expectations of the students.  And I feel it can't
> give
> > > the students what they need and deserve as it depends on the teacher on
knowing the best way to explain a point and all the relevant rules and
exceptions there and then, rather than having the time to think about it and
plan before hand.  Maybe my five years of experience aren't enough but I
> > > think they ought to be.
> > > > So I've gone back to textbook teaching with free discussion following
the exercises as before.  The one difference is that I write down their language
for future lessons as I still firmly believe that the lesson should be based on
what the students need and not what the textbook says is
> next.
> > > But I have to say that the best presentation of the language is still the
textbook way as it is what the students want ; something well prepared and well
informed.
> > > > People who have been on the site a while will say that this is a
complete u-turn on my behalf and they would be absolutely right.  I've tried it
and as far as I can see it doesn't work.  But at least I know I gave it a real
go.
> > > >
> > > > With a disappointed but still open outlook,
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > p.s. Scott, I tried reformulating the conversations but it didn't work
as they ( my pre-int. students) couldn't hear what was wrong.  Perhaps the
reason they said it in th
> > > e first place.  Also they couldn't remember what they said and isn't just
as artificial if I am using some reheated conversation as a conversation by some
'out of work actors'?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jon Butt
> > > 175 Crofton Park Rd
> > > London SE4 1AJ
> > > Phone: 020 8690 5045
> > > e-mail: jonbutt@...
> > >
> > > To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
> Jon Butt
> 175 Crofton Park Rd
> London SE4 1AJ
> Phone: 020 8690 5045
> e-mail: jonbutt@...
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

As a recent subscriber and "lurker",
I am still somewhat behind the curve - would someone kindly define
the essence and basic philosophy behind the "dogme" dogma.
Appreciated in advance!

Andy Chernel teaching in the outer reaches of Southern Moravia in the
!cloud cuckoo land of the Czech Rep."
chernel@...

Andras, welcome, nice to hear from you - yeah I get it . love
me...love my... nice :)

I'm taking the liberty to cut and paste Luke's posting (635) in
reponse to a similar query. See also the website: www.teaching-
unplugged.com


"Dogme not dogma - dogme because the name was coined by a group of
Danish film-makers who used that spelling - and not dogma because we
aim to be undogmatic. If we are advocating a pedagogy that draws on
and addresses the live, local language needs of the learners it has
to be flexible.

A dogme moment could be a number of things - to me, it could be when
a group of students realise they are interacting, and being
encouraged to interact as people, not just students at a given level;
or when a class is fully engaged in analysing language which has
emerged with the help of the teacher. It could be when students start
bringing in texts and questions of their own. It could be when the
teacher stops the chat to examine a language point and the rationale -
that they are being supported in a rigorous way to say what they need
to say, not led by the hand through a coursebook - becomes clear to
the students. None of these or other dogme moments are inaccessible
through other means, but we're interested in seeing how we can make
them a regular or central, not occasional or peripheral, part of the
experience.

It could also be when you find yourself persevering with something in
a class, looking for the emergent language and wondering just where
it's going. My experience is that having faith in yourself and the
learners pays off."

Put that in your dog and eat it!

Dear sthornbury,

Apologies for not knowing if you are
Sam(antha)/Simon/Ste(ph/v)en/Sven(gali), et al.

Thank you for your prompt and kind reply.

I am currently so busy that when I turn one of the four corners of
my house, I catch a fleeting glimpse of my own disappearing buns ...

when I "get round 2 it" I shall peruse with interest and perhaps
chuck in me tuppence h'apenny's worth.

I should, in all fairness, warn you though, that I am a
"non-professional/un-qualified professional EFL teacher ".

I came into the profession by chance/luck back in March of '93.
By trial-and-error and "flying by the seat of my pants, a.k.a.
bush-piloting", and the inexorable passage of time, I have "drug
meself up to teachin' at a local uni.

Dog gone!

Hairy Hound

p.s. Dinner is in the dog!

-----Original Message-----
From: sthornbury@... [mailto:sthornbury@...]
Sent: 12 June 2001 09:51
To: dogme@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dogme] Re: dogme/eatmydog


A dogme moment could be a number of things...

Perhaps it's just the moment when the interaction becomes real and not
mediated by coursebooks, grammar points or stereotypical reactions to the
students. But I'd like to go back to a posting I made some time ago: can
dogme moments be provocative, i.e. moving students outside their comfort
zones?

I have a class of Arabic speakers with very high levels of spoken English
and fairly prejudiced views of western behaviour. I spend a whole year
trying to introduce them to western ways of thinking and, in a fairly
light-hearted way, trying to challenge their views of women. We laugh a lot
in my class because they have a very finely developed sense of humour. In
one of the last classes they asked me why I always teased the men and not
the two women. I answered that with the women it was 'too serious' and they
were my support group - there to protect me against the wall of Arabic
masculinity that confronted me each lesson. It was definitely a dangerous
thing to say but I can't see how otherwise I can challenge them to see a
different point of view.

Olwyn

Olwyn:

Suppose I asked the Arab men about their question. Suppose they answered that
they had caused you to think about your apparently unconscious attraction to
Arab masculinity, and that you had covered up your confusion by a perfectly
nonsensical seriousness and then reinforced their interpretation by identifying
yourself with Arab women.

Does this (admittedly tendentious) interpretation make the moment any less of a
dogme moment? Does a dogme moment require intersubjectivity to succeed? And if
so, how much?

Here is what Maureen Morrissey says:

"Since our classroom maintains a positive, encouraging atmpsphere, it was
natural for Blanca and Jessica to come running up and tattle that Mara had told
them, 'shut up'. I still laugh at the memory of the expressions on their faces
when my eyes lit up and i exclaimed, 'that's great!' These were Mara's first
words in English. I explained my reaction to the two girls as ww went over to
tell Mara some nicer ways to say 'shut up' in English....we had taken advantage
of a teachable moment.
     "Some teachers do not take advantage of teachable moments. They view such
times as distruptions of their scheduled day. I see them as an important and
inegrated part of the curriculum. The key word here is integrated. In any
classroom teachable moments happen often...our classroom organization allows us
to take advantage of most teachable or evaluative moments because they arise in
the context of our activities. They generally start with a student's inquiry:
'What time is it?" 'Why did it rain at my Nana's house and not at mine?' 'How
does this work?' 'How can I find a library book on horses?' Some teachable
moments are followed thorugh on immediately. Some I respond to quickly and jot
them down in a notebook for further development.
    "By October my notes made it clear to me that many of my students could not
tell time from a clock with hands. This grew into a unit on clock reading, a
unit on multiplication of fives, and another unit on the history of clocks and
the need for keeping time.
     "The teachable or evaluative moment is a growth point, a window of
spontaenous insight for both my students and myself."

"When 'Shut up' is a sign of growth", in the Whole Language Evaluation Book,
Goodman, Goodman & Hood, Heinemann, 1989

Often, the insight is not at all the same, and in fact the topic under
consideration is not even the same. The teacher is interested in children, not
clocks. The children do not carry around notebooks full of points for further
development. When Morrissey shares a teachable moment with Blanca and Jessica,
she is sharing the teaching role with them--but not with Mara.
(On the other hand, she is sharing a critical part of the teaching role with
Mara: syllabus control.)

We start out from totally separate roles and with radically different
understandings of an interaction in class, and we end very slightly closer
together in understanding but still equally separate in social power. In that,
"dogme" moments are very like other moments of real communication, a theoretical
proof of Luke's dictum that teaching is just talking. True, Luke, but just
talking is a bloody miracle.

Hi Olwyn

I think this is an interesting one. One, because the desire to in some way
affect our students' view of the world is fraught with difficulty. One can
only share experience and - in my world view - assert one's right to think
differently to someone else, although in other world views, and possibly
that of your students, the baseline assumption is that certain perspectives
are more valid than others. Perhaps we all think that, and that's what
allows us to sustain our world view when there are so many others. What I'm
suggesting is that there's no point spending a great deal of time and energy
getting someone to pay lip-service to the idea that people and their beliefs
have equal value when their value system does not allow such a perspective.

It also implies the possibility of moving the teacher past his or her
comfort zone, and I think this is equally problematic.Something that is
uncomfortable may not be ready to be expressed directly - once one becomes
comfortable with something, however difficult it was to come to terms with,
it is ready to be expressed. I don't think soul-baring is a level of
discourse appropriate to the classroom, and some of the worst teachers I
have seen brought either nothing of themselves to the classroom, or too
much.

So - I think this is an interesting one. Haven't really answered your
question. I personally think, though, that one of the aims of a dogme class
is to sustain a comfortable environment for the participants, so the idea of
consciously 'moving' somone out of that bothers me.

Luke


----- Original Message -----
From: "Olwyn Alexander" <o.alexander@...>
To: <dogme@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:40 PM
Subject: [dogme] Defining dogme moments


>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sthornbury@... [mailto:sthornbury@...]
> Sent: 12 June 2001 09:51
> To: dogme@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [dogme] Re: dogme/eatmydog
>
>
> A dogme moment could be a number of things...
>
> Perhaps it's just the moment when the interaction becomes real and not
> mediated by coursebooks, grammar points or stereotypical reactions to the
> students. But I'd like to go back to a posting I made some time ago: can
> dogme moments be provocative, i.e. moving students outside their comfort
> zones?
>
> I have a class of Arabic speakers with very high levels of spoken English
> and fairly prejudiced views of western behaviour. I spend a whole year
> trying to introduce them to western ways of thinking and, in a fairly
> light-hearted way, trying to challenge their views of women. We laugh a
lot
> in my class because they have a very finely developed sense of humour. In
> one of the last classes they asked me why I always teased the men and not
> the two women. I answered that with the women it was 'too serious' and
they
> were my support group - there to protect me against the wall of Arabic
> masculinity that confronted me each lesson. It was definitely a dangerous
> thing to say but I can't see how otherwise I can challenge them to see a
> different point of view.
>
> Olwyn
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

As I recall, 'teaching is just talking' was what a student said as we
discussed what she had enjoyed, or not enjoyed, about her classes. Which
strengthens it as a dictum!

Luke


----- Original Message -----
From: "kellogg" <kellogg@...>
To: <dogme@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:19 AM
Subject: [dogme] Intersubjectivity and miracles


> Olwyn:
>
> Suppose I asked the Arab men about their question. Suppose they answered
that they had caused you to think about your apparently unconscious
attraction to Arab masculinity, and that you had covered up your confusion
by a perfectly nonsensical seriousness and then reinforced their
interpretation by identifying yourself with Arab women.
>
> Does this (admittedly tendentious) interpretation make the moment any less
of a dogme moment? Does a dogme moment require intersubjectivity to succeed?
And if so, how much?
>
> Here is what Maureen Morrissey says:
>
> "Since our classroom maintains a positive, encouraging atmpsphere, it was
natural for Blanca and Jessica to come running up and tattle that Mara had
told them, 'shut up'. I still laugh at the memory of the expressions on
their faces when my eyes lit up and i exclaimed, 'that's great!' These were
Mara's first words in English. I explained my reaction to the two girls as
ww went over to tell Mara some nicer ways to say 'shut up' in English....we
had taken advantage of a teachable moment.
>     "Some teachers do not take advantage of teachable moments. They view
such times as distruptions of their scheduled day. I see them as an
important and inegrated part of the curriculum. The key word here is
integrated. In any classroom teachable moments happen often...our classroom
organization allows us to take advantage of most teachable or evaluative
moments because they arise in the context of our activities. They generally
start with a student's inquiry: 'What time is it?" 'Why did it rain at my
Nana's house and not at mine?' 'How does this work?' 'How can I find a
library book on horses?' Some teachable moments are followed thorugh on
immediately. Some I respond to quickly and jot them down in a notebook for
further development.
>    "By October my notes made it clear to me that many of my students could
not tell time from a clock with hands. This grew into a unit on clock
reading, a unit on multiplication of fives, and another unit on the history
of clocks and the need for keeping time.
>     "The teachable or evaluative moment is a growth point, a window of
spontaenous insight for both my students and myself."
>
> "When 'Shut up' is a sign of growth", in the Whole Language Evaluation
Book, Goodman, Goodman & Hood, Heinemann, 1989
>
> Often, the insight is not at all the same, and in fact the topic under
consideration is not even the same. The teacher is interested in children,
not clocks. The children do not carry around notebooks full of points for
further development. When Morrissey shares a teachable moment with Blanca
and Jessica, she is sharing the teaching role with them--but not with Mara.
> (On the other hand, she is sharing a critical part of the teaching role
with Mara: syllabus control.)
>
> We start out from totally separate roles and with radically different
understandings of an interaction in class, and we end very slightly closer
together in understanding but still equally separate in social power. In
that, "dogme" moments are very like other moments of real communication, a
theoretical proof of Luke's dictum that teaching is just talking. True,
Luke, but just talking is a bloody miracle.
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Fransesc is having technical problems posting his message which
I'm endeavouring to solve. Meanwhile Lucy has inadvertently posted
a virus - on no account open her attachment and ignore her
message (sorry Lucy nothing perosnal) - it is a virus that's going
roudn which grabs any old thing from your files and sends bits of it
to one of your addresses. So much for technology, Scott

----- Original Message -----

From: Dan and Male

To: Dogme

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 6:59 PM

Subject: [dogme] Chasing the chaste

Dear all,

Luke recently showed me an article in IATEFL issues which is about the development of Dogme.  Near the beginning it had a part about the problematic 'vow of chastity' which was supposedly agreed to by the members of this site.  I say supposedly not out of cynicism but out of the fact that we never really had to vow to do anything we just liked its ideas.

Well in spirit with my recent loss of faith I propose that we reaffirm this vow but with some things redefined.

Looking at Olwyn's recent contribution about challenging students' perceptions as being Dogme and Luke's gentle response saying that wasn't quite how he saw Dogme I was left with the question - What the hell is Dogme?

Maybe the reason my classes have been failing is that I haven't been following Dogme after all but just my belief of what Dogme means to me.  So many of these recent contributions have used this phrase 'Dogme moments' to describe an enormous range of experiences.  (It feels like the Nigella Lawson programme on the TV.TV. last night where she was talking about 'Temple foods' which gave an idea of cleansing and purification but ended up being more less anything without too much fat!  Just for England dwellers that one sorry )

I agree with that discussion of Group Psychology Scott but I think it extends to capture not only people who push themselves further and further to be seen as individuals but also people who redefine their behaviour in new terms so as to be deemed part of the group.  And I know that the consequent effect of that is that the group is left wondering what was the defining characteristic that defined them as a group in the first place.

So perhaps chastity might not be such a bad thing after all!

love,
Dan

To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Dear all,

I'm sorry to say this but it does appear as if people haven't been
reading my postings! Two key issues here have already been raised but
left unanswerd and not responded to?
Some of my best Dogme lessons have been lessons about Dogme, discussions
with students about what we're doing and why.
Secondly, surely Dogme has been defined - it's about listening to your
students, not following the prescribed coursebook syllabus but rather
taking the students 'inner' syllabus.

Adrian (someone who reads every message)

This is my first contribution to the board, so I should be polite and
introduce myself. My name is Francesc Mortés and I'm an English
teacher working in a private language school outside Barcelona
city.

I can't quite remember when or how I first bumped into this forum,
but given that things have been pretty hectic at work for the last few
months, I've only recently started lurking and reading past
messages.

Last Friday we had a parents' evening at work and I managed to
hide behind a computer (I wasn't feeling very sociable). I spent a
couple of hours browsing www.teaching-unplugged.com and
reading some of the 'key' posts on this board. I must confess that,
while some of the stuff I read went right over my head, a lot of it
was very invigorating. It touched a chord and I can definitely
sympathise with the basic tenets which seem to underpin Dogme. I
have a feeling that there are a lot of (experienced?) teachers out
there delivering (or should I say 'uncovering'?) Dogme or Dogme-like
lessons.

Anyway, the reason why I thought I'd post something is that I've
always had a fascination for parallel or equivalent phenomena
taking place in completely separate fields as a result of similar
factors and with equivalent results. This is a bit like dolphins and
sharks having developed similar streamlined anatomies and
swimming styles over millions of years of evolution despite coming
from totally opposite starting points.

Please bear with me. I assure you that there is a Dogme
connection here....I hope!

If any of you happen to be into recreational scuba diving, you may
have noticed how much EFL teachers and scuba divers have in
common. To mention but a few :

-the ability to dive is a skill (or rather, a set of skills), a kind of
procedural knowledg
-a lot of what goes on during a dive is beyond the diver's control
and may even go unnoticed -there is no such thing as a 'perfect
diver' or a 'perfect dive'
-it's hard to say what makes a good diver, BUT -some divers are
markedly better than others AND
-the more you dive, the better at it you tend to get (provided there is
some post-dive reflection, etc.)
-good divers have bad dives and viceversa
-what constitutes a good dive to me may be quite the opposite to
another diver
-becoming a 'certified' diver costs money
-certification courses are usually short and intensive
-some divers dive without a cert.
-in some countries uncertified divers may be punished, if caught
diving
-different certifying agencies compete against each other
internationally
-these agencies are essentially very similar, but all claim otherwise
-there are different levels of certification
-attaining each new level means spending more money
-taking a higher certification course doesn't necessarily make you
a better diver
-being a certified diver doesn't mean you can actually dive
-being a 'cowboy' diver doesn't mean you can't actually dive
-diving is culturally-sensitive (i.e. diving procedures may differ from
one country to another)
-recreational diving is a multi-million euro industry
-an array of powerful and influential equipment manufacturers target
divers worldwide
-the message they send is: 'more is better' (more dive gear, that is)
-many divers end up looking like astronauts, especially in
developed countries
-a lot of the (expensive) dive gear made by different companies is
essentially the same
-some of it is useless or even downright hazardous
-there is a Dogme-like school of thought in recreational diving: it's
called DIR (Doing it Right)
-DIR divers can be recognised because they carry much LESS
gear than 'traditional' divers
-DIR divers believe in 'gear-low' diving (what is not essential is
believed to be a potential hazard)
-the configuration and use of DIR equipment is sometimes radically
different from the established norm/orthodoxy

  If I haven't put you to sleep yet and you'd like to know more about
DIR diving, here's a few links:
http://www.dirquest.com/about_dir.shtml
http://www.sfdj.com/fall/mee.html
http://www.sfdj.com/fall/beyond2.html
http://www.scubadiving.com/members/divetips.php?s=240

Oh, one last thing: DIR diving was born at the apex of
technical/deep penetration diving (a bit like the Applied Linguistics
dept. at Lancaster University) and is only now slowly trickling down
the pyramid.

Of course, you can only take metaphors so far, right?

All the best,
Francesc

BTW,

'Termites are small white insects which live in hot countries in
nests made of earth. They do a lot of damage by eating wood'.
(COBUILD) Are Dogmites a subspecies specialised in eating
books?

Dan, in the end, vows are not to be taken TOO seriously. I've just
read this, by Paulo Freire: "A progressive, postmodernist requirement
is that we not be too certain of our certainties, that we operate
contrary to the exaggerated certainites of modernity". What this
suggests to me is that dogme is NOT: a method, a belief, a dogma, an
(exaggerated) certainty. Of course, it is easier to say what it is
NOT than to say what it is. But the exercise of saying what it MIGHT
BE - an exercise that has taken us through over a year and 600
postings - is surely a worthwhile exercise in itself. However much we
might disagree on the small print.  Just a thought.
Scott

According to my virus proetection program Lucy's attachment to the
message with the above title  was carrying a virus.


Dennis
Dennis (Newson)
Formerly University of Osnabrueck
GERMANY
www.dennisnewson.de

Dr Evil:

I too read all the messages--and I too produce a lot of unread
messages or rather messages which don't apparently provoke a
response. (You will look in vain for ANY of my messages on Scott's
website or in his digest of recommended mails to read, and you may be
very certain that the omission is deliberate.)

But let me revise what I was arguing a few letters ago. I think some
of the most "productive" messages on this list are NOT those that
provoke immediate responses or even continuity. Two "childless
orphans" that I particularly cherish are Luke's "back to
sloganeering" and Graham's recent one on metaphors. To these (which
although not a year old are by the founding fathers) I would also
add Dr. Evil's mail on exams. Unfortunately, I have also been doing
my own final exams, so I haven't had time to think about how it
applies to me, much less reply to you.

There are a lot of dogme ramifications here, and I don't want to
exhaust them. Just let me open one up.

I'm now studying Korean full time, following a very structuralist
course at Seoul National University. It's all terribly PPP and one of
the favorite activities is to give us a structure like:

Han-guk norae-rago-nun, jonun Arirang bboon ibnida!

"As for Korean songs, 'Arirang' is the only one I know!"

and then we each go around the room creating structures to fit this
pattern.

Yesterday, on an exam, I created the sentence:

"Ye-sul ki-neung-rago-nun, jonun geurim-geurin got bboon ibnida!"

"As for artistic manual skills, painting is all I know."

My Korean roommate opined that putting "artistic" together
with "manual skills" was "strange" and "unnatural". Since I firmly
believe that all language is artificial, this was no deterrent. The
teacher confirmed my roommate's opinion this morning.

I then attempted to point out in Korean the complete arbitrariness,
and in fact hypocrisy, of this notion of normality. We are put in a
situation where we must create sentences for completely "unnatural"
reasons. Since there is no discourse context, the sentences can only
obtain normalcy by reference to universal stereotypes or to the here
and now (thus the proverbial pens of one's aunt, and texts about
drinking, smoking, pop music and the environment). Anything which
does not do this, we then brand "unnatural".

There is further the problem of whether "naturalness" is to be
recommnded for persons attempting to learn non-native languages. I
would certainly never attempt to turn a Korean child into an
American. I think that the arguments that have been made (by Scott
amongst others) against corpus linguistics (corprophilia, I like to
think of it) and the resulting tyranny of "natural" (i.e. native
speaker) language are not just applicable to international languages
like English. Linguistic assimilation of immigrants (and I am one) is
not merely pedagogically unfeasible, it is unethical and
fundamentally racist.

Immigrants need to be comprehensible, but we do not need to
be "natural". On the contrary, we need to be different, inimitable,
and interesting. The pedagogy which encourages this by having us
create our own examples is correct (although it should not restrict
this encouragement to grammar), and when it denounces the results as
unnatural, it betrays that correct impulse.

Now, my Korean is not yet fully adequate to point all this out. But
it did all come out, in a manner of speaking, in the discussion. Thus
what happened this morning was what happened in your class: a serious
discussion of ideas actually in the here and now: ideas about
learning, teaching and testing. This I think explains why dogme
itself is an interesting content for class discussions, and why
testing does make a good teaching exercise. It is both real and
ideological, immediate and theoretical.

Allwright also argues this: we should be talking about learning with
the learners; not necessarily because it will help improve it, but
because people normally do talk about what they are doing at the
moment.

But that is teaching, and not evaluation. I think for evaluation we
need a power that will project what we are teaching beyond the
classroom, to the learner's future needs.

I'm reading a book about it: the Whole Language Evaluation book,
which I quote from at some length last mail. The argument is really
that if we are serious about evaluating what people do while they are
doing it, instead of having them fill out forms which are then used
as flimsy evidence for unfounded conjectures on what they are capable
of, we need to use project work.

Project work, of course, is really a student written exam. Not an
exam that learners write for each other (which I think is really a
teaching exercise and not an evaluation exercise). An exam that each
learner must create for his or herself based on his/her relevant
needs.

Project work says that power is in the inimitable and incomparable
learner and nowhere else. I believe that, and if the result lying on
my desk now stubbornly resists comparison, categorization, and
reduction to aliquot and fungible scores, this is merely the tangible
proof.

DK

I found this quote at the start of an article entitled "ELT courses and
materials - a case in their defence" by Sue Hackett, in the most recent
edition of the FELT Newsletter ("Forum for English Language Teachers in
Ireland"), which is available on the Web at <http://welcome.to/felt>; it
makes for quite interesting reading and to me confirms the value of dogme as
a ginger group that makes people think about and re-evaluate what they do.

cheers

Simon Gill, Olomouc, CZ

"Recently, at the 2001 IATEFL Conference in Brighton, Dogme ELT, a group
headed by Scott Thornbury, presented a spirited case for a return to the
‘essential conditions of language learning’ (Thornbury, S.: 2001) and the
dismissal of globally published materials. Their proposal centrally involved
a concerted move in ELT to the concept of
‘material-less’ lessons, in which, they asserted, we could as  professionals
rediscover our skills as teachers, rather than simply as deliverers of
others’ materials, thus, getting back to the fundamentals of teaching and
somehow purify ourselves by being true to ‘a pedagogy of bare essentials’
(ibid.).

Intentionally or otherwise, the ensuing debate focused on the rights and
wrongs of using ELT materials and at its most idealistic,advocated
discarding materials altogether and entering the classroom ‘with no
pre-set agenda’ but rather through interaction and negotiation with the
learners, guiding and facilitating lessons, which, by their very unprepared
nature, would be dynamic, contingent and enthusing.

But why have materials, globally published or otherwise, developed such a
bad name for themselves? Why have materials become the focus of blame for
lessons which go badly or which apparently fail to achieve what they were
designed to do?"

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Hi
I kind of go with Olwyn's challenging learner's perceptions, or, in a
typical piece of linguistic fudging, maybe the word 'challenge' is too
strong and we can call it 'awareness raising' - perhaps in the case of
Olwyn's example (I say perhpas cos I wasn't there), raising cultural
awareness. Certainly for overseas students studying within British HE, they
need to be aware of what is culturally appropriate in the institutions here
- they can then choose whether to try to play the game or resist.
I realsie there's a minefield waiting for me on this one, so I emphasise
that this is not (necessarily) trying to change students' cultural
behaviour.

Luke's subsequent comment re. feeling 'comfortable'. I think has echoes of
me banging on ages ago about 'safe space'.  If these things are to be
raised, then learners need to feel confident that they can challenge/raise
awareness and be challenged (passives - who'd do without 'em, eh?). So I
dson't think the two are necessarily diametrically opposed.


DK also replied to Olwyn, talking about intersubjectivity. For me, this lies
at the heart of the language classroom (and anything else really) - this
idea that things are socially constructed with people perceiving what
happens from their own point of view. If lessons are essentially social
events based upon social relations  and social interaction (a bit of
Allwright in there somewhere). Therefore, everybody in the room comes
together to produce the lessons together. For me personally, this is what
thinking in a dogme-way gets towards that just picking up the textbook and
getting on with it leaves behind.

Which kind of leads me on to Dan's "just my belief of what Dogme means to
me". In something which isn't a dogma, but is a way of thinking (how many
times has that been written), I don't see anything particularly wrong with
this. Back in October I wrote "... am I in fact, following a reasonable
dogme-ish path?" I still go with this as a valid question 'cos I think it
means I'm still thinking about my teaching, and working out how something
both principled and practical. Therefore for me, this list and dogme is
being constructed in a similar way to a classroom.

I thought I had a whole lot more to write and wanted to namecheck (or
plunder the ideas of)the entire list, but inspiration (or otherwise) has
suddenly dried up.

Cheers

Graham

DK - thanks. It heartens me to see that thing are read and I take your
point about 'unreplied but not unread'. Also, reading about your Korean
lessons reminds me of the British Sign Language classes I'm taking at
the moment.
In my college we share a staff room with BSL and MFL(Modern foreign
language) teachers. In an effort to be able to communicate I started BSL
lessons some 3 months ago. As a purely visual language one would think
that there were little similarities in teaching and learning, but this
is not true.
Firstly, the BSL teachers raid our resources!!! - but for a different
reason (there is almost NO BSL published material). Secondly, the
cognitive processes appear to be both similar and overlap in many ways.
However, I wonder now if I'm a very visual learner as opposed to aural
etc.
The most interesting thing is the lesson plans and syllabus we are using
- our teacher has. The course is broken up into 10 lessons. The first 10
lessons are written on one half of an A4 sheet. eg Lesson 1 - names &
alphabet. Lesson 2 - Where?. Lesson 7 - Time. etc In fact during the
lessons we get to 'chat' and find out whatever we want to, the lesson on
Where? included men's toilets, women's toilets, Majorca and born!! To me
this is part of the spirit of Dogme - my BSL teacher is flexible enough
to let us, the students, take the lesson where we want (sometimes to
places we probably shouldn't visit).

Dr Evil (living up to my name).

AGAIN a virus from dogme - according to my virus protection
program contained in a message from:

Tom Ottway.

I'm afraid I can't give more details because I detonated the mail.

Dennis
Dennis (Newson)
Formerly University of Osnabrueck
GERMANY
www.dennisnewson.de

Thanks Dennis

I thought it looked suspicious too but was not warned by virus protection,
deleted it anyway.

I suspect the viruses may be coming from a leading ELT publisher ...

Luke

----- Original Message -----
From: <dnewson@...>
To: <dogme@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 5:20 PM
Subject: [dogme] Virus again....


> AGAIN a virus from dogme - according to my virus protection
> program contained in a message from:
>
> Tom Ottway.
>
> I'm afraid I can't give more details because I detonated the mail.
>
> Dennis
> Dennis (Newson)
> Formerly University of Osnabrueck
> GERMANY
> www.dennisnewson.de
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi digmites,

Anyone heard of any good advanced textbooks recently. I've got a problem
with a group which talks too much.

:-))

Reuben

Scott, isn't it possible to set up Yahoo!Groups so that no attachments are
possible? It means that no one can send everyone documents that might be
interesting to us all, but also means (I think) that no one inadvertently
(or as Luke says, deliberately!) sends a virus.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: Luke Meddings <luke@...>
To: <dogme@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [dogme] Virus again....


> Thanks Dennis
>
> I thought it looked suspicious too but was not warned by virus protection,
> deleted it anyway.
>
> I suspect the viruses may be coming from a leading ELT publisher ...
>
> Luke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dnewson@...>
> To: <dogme@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 5:20 PM
> Subject: [dogme] Virus again....
>
>
> > AGAIN a virus from dogme - according to my virus protection
> > program contained in a message from:
> >
> > Tom Ottway.
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't give more details because I detonated the mail.
> >
> > Dennis
> > Dennis (Newson)
> > Formerly University of Osnabrueck
> > GERMANY
> > www.dennisnewson.de
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hi!

Previous posts on this forum have touched on the
Vygotskyan/interactional view of "learning as talking" (e.g. see
messages 7 & 69 from Scott.

The other day I was listening to a radio programme while driving to a
company where I teach an elementary class. A Catalan anthropologist
was being interviewed on the subject of "language as an essentially
human attribute". At one point during the interview he mentioned the
following case study:

An American couple, both parents deaf since birth and proficient in
ASL (American Sign Language), had a baby without any hearing
impairments. Unfortunately, the baby was soon diagnosed as having a
major immune disorder which meant he/she was almost house bound for
several years.

Needless to say, the parents wanted their child to acquire English,
so (wait for this one...)they devised a diet of exposure based
exclusively on TV programmes. They literally sat their kid down in
front of the telly for hours on end.

By age three the kid spoke no English and had developed a rudimentary
form of sign language with which he communicated most of the time,
even though he deliberately had had no instruction in ASL.

Obviously, I do not know how true or accurate this account is. I am
afraid I didn't catch the name of the family in question or the
researcher who studied the case (I am not a great driver and I need
to concentrate at the wheel!). Does anyone know more details about
this case? Can anyone confirm this actually happened as I heard it? I
remember reading about similar cases in Pinker's The Language
Instinct, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was some truth in it ...

Assuming the story is true, here is some food for thought:

-Exposure to comprehensible input or input +1 didn't seem to do much
for this kid, assuming he/she actually got some (for all I know, all
the kid got to watch was TV preachers)

-The *possible* emergence of an ASL pidgin in a child who is
physically capable of acquiring and using a spoken code suggests that
exposure to and opportunities for INTERACTION in ASL overrode the
default acquisition.

Any thoughts?

Francesc

Tom - yes it *is* possible to block attachments, and I will do so if
there is a general feeling we should. Show of hands?  Alternatively,
people should be very wary of opening any attachment which is an .exe
file. Or ANYTHING that looks dodgy and is not easily accountable for
in the text that accompanies it.

Incidentally, Im writing this from Buenos Aires, where tomorrow Im
doing a plenary in which the D word will be mentioned. Let's see if
it serves to push membership over the 50 mark...

Hasta la proxima, Scott


--- In dogme@y..., "Tom Walton" <twalton@i...> wrote:
> Scott, isn't it possible to set up Yahoo!Groups so that no
attachments are
> possible? It means that no one can send everyone documents that
might be
> interesting to us all, but also means (I think) that no one
inadvertently
> (or as Luke says, deliberately!) sends a virus.
>
> Tom
>

I came across the Dogme group shortly after returning from a short
consultation trip to a small provincial town in Russia. This was the
third trip of a similar kind I've carried out over the last eight
months and the most common concern voiced by the teachers I've met
has been to do with their lack of "up-to-date" materials. This lack
is caused less by their distance from sources of materials than by
their inability to afford the cost of materials. Teachers are
convinced that they cannot hope to teach in an "up-to-date" way
without "up-to-date" coursebooks, tapes and videos. Visits by
ELT "experts" only seem to confirm this belief. I have become
increasingly dissatisfied with my responses to this concern and less
and less sure that I have been leaving these teachers with anything
that will really help them in their work.

Rather than leaving these teachers with increased feelings of
frustration at their lack of materials, it is blindingly obvious that
what I should be doing is suggesting ways in which they could promote
learning without stacks of bright, shiny new materials. There's
nothing new about this, of course. Who was it who wrote something
called "Teaching English in Difficult Circumstances" some 40 or 50
years ago? In those days it was all to do with lack of books and no
electricity in an African village, but at least there was little or
no extra baggage made up of competing theories, methodologies,
techniques and technologies, not to mention the confusing mass of
published coursebooks This is why I have found the Dogme discussions
refreshing amd stimulating.

Before my next trip to the Russian provinces I feel it may be
worthwhile to attempt to strip away some of my own unnecessary
baggage (both figuratively and literally). I have a number of ideas
about how I might do this, but I wonder if anyone has any experience
of getting teachers in that part of the world to rethink their
attachment to textbooks, grammar and methodology, keeping in mind:
(a) the traditional Russian textbook dependency (you know those
Russian textbooks – page after page of closely printed linguistic
exercises!); (b) the teachers' lack of confidence in their own
English language communication skills; (c) the students' and
teachers' lack of contact with the general cultural context of
English use (perhaps not relevant?); (d) students' and teachers'
expectations of what happens in a language "lesson"?

Hi dsscarborough (have I missed a first name?) - thanks for your message and for
putting the need for stripped-down teaching, and many of the key questions
relating to its implementation, so clearly in context.

I won't attempt to answer as I don't have the experience of Russia you outline.

c) strikes me as possibly very relevant, as one of my own reasons for wanting to
avoid most printed 'materials' is that, here in London, they are in an
English-speaking context. Why press play when they hear it all day? Why ask them
to hush when the can get on the bus? My own motivation for developing stripped
down teaching was that I couldn't see the value in students travelling halfway
across the world to be led through several units of the same coursebooks they
had at home, and to be told, when there are tvs, radios, cheap newspapers, and
now the Internet all around them, to read or listen to something of dubious
relevance. The teaching I do now, however, is so low on input and high in use of
the shared resource of teacher-student langauge that I think it could be done
anywhere.

Yours optimistically

Luke

(You wrote:
Before my next trip to the Russian provinces I feel it may be
worthwhile to attempt to strip away some of my own unnecessary
baggage (both figuratively and literally). I have a number of ideas
about how I might do this, but I wonder if anyone has any experience
of getting teachers in that part of the world to rethink their
attachment to textbooks, grammar and methodology, keeping in mind:
(a) the traditional Russian textbook dependency (you know those
Russian textbooks – page after page of closely printed linguistic
exercises!); (b) the teachers' lack of confidence in their own
English language communication skills; (c) the students' and
teachers' lack of contact with the general cultural context of
English use (perhaps not relevant?); (d) students' and teachers'
expectations of what happens in a language "lesson"?)

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/27/01 at 2:12 PM drscarbrough@... wrote:

>I came across the Dogme group shortly after returning from a short
>consultation trip to a small provincial town in Russia. This was the
>third trip of a similar kind I've carried out over the last eight
>months and the most common concern voiced by the teachers I've met
>has been to do with their lack of "up-to-date" materials. This lack
>is caused less by their distance from sources of materials than by
>their inability to afford the cost of materials. Teachers are
>convinced that they cannot hope to teach in an "up-to-date" way
>without "up-to-date" coursebooks, tapes and videos. Visits by
>ELT "experts" only seem to confirm this belief. I have become
>increasingly dissatisfied with my responses to this concern and less
>and less sure that I have been leaving these teachers with anything
>that will really help them in their work.
>
>Rather than leaving these teachers with increased feelings of
>frustration at their lack of materials, it is blindingly obvious that
>what I should be doing is suggesting ways in which they could promote
>learning without stacks of bright, shiny new materials. There's
>nothing new about this, of course. Who was it who wrote something
>called "Teaching English in Difficult Circumstances" some 40 or 50
>years ago? In those days it was all to do with lack of books and no
>electricity in an African village, but at least there was little or
>no extra baggage made up of competing theories, methodologies,
>techniques and technologies, not to mention the confusing mass of
>published coursebooks This is why I have found the Dogme discussions
>refreshing amd stimulating.
>
>Before my next trip to the Russian provinces I feel it may be
>worthwhile to attempt to strip away some of my own unnecessary
>baggage (both figuratively and literally). I have a number of ideas
>about how I might do this, but I wonder if anyone has any experience
>of getting teachers in that part of the world to rethink their
>attachment to textbooks, grammar and methodology, keeping in mind:
>(a) the traditional Russian textbook dependency (you know those
>Russian textbooks – page after page of closely printed linguistic
>exercises!); (b) the teachers' lack of confidence in their own
>English language communication skills; (c) the students' and
>teachers' lack of contact with the general cultural context of
>English use (perhaps not relevant?); (d) students' and teachers'
>expectations of what happens in a language "lesson"?
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to:   dogme@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

Luke and " snow on your boots",

  Let me share a very simple (simplistic?) idea of a straightforward
project I'd like to be able to carry out in Kosova, where I've been
twice, as a so-called trainer, meeting roomsful of teachers with little
English (anyone with adequate English finds far better-paid jobs
with UNO agencies and NGOs as drivers or translators) lots of pupils
and, until recently, no books. (Now most have Headway, but no tape
recorders on which to play the cassettes or equipment for viewing
the videos, if they have them.)

I would like to go back a third time with a hand-held video camera
and make a visual and sound record of one or two chosen local
teachers teaching Kosovar children in their own classrooms. (I've
made a number of such videos in my wife's classroom. The recorded
sound quality is surprisingly good. A tripod doesn't interest me, or
lighting (unless I can't film half of the class because of the sun).
You need to be able to move around, look over pupils' shoulders, jump
up on a chair, squeeze yourself into a corner.


Armed with the videos and accompanied by the local teachers I
would then go to chosen  towns and villages  and give weekend
workshops saying: "It is possible to do something, even in the
circumstances that face you. Look. Here it is being done."

Convinced? Now let us get together and work out and practice
teaching in the sort of way you've seen demonstrated on the video.


Dennis
Dennis (Newson)
Formerly University of Osnabrueck
GERMANY
www.dennisnewson.de