In a recent posting Sue said: "I hasten to add that any
classroom 'happenings' I write about are never intended to be
anything but examples of how I see dogme type principles working in
the reality around me; not templates or models to copy!"
This chimes neatly with a point made by Kumaravadivelu in the latest
TESOL Q ("Towards a postmethod pedagogy") in which he
characterises "post method" pedagogy as being one of "particularity,
practicality, and possibility" (PPP?). By particularity he
means: "language pedagogy, to be relevant, must be sensitive to a
particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners
pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional
context embedded in a particular sociocultural milieu". He
elaborates: "All pedagogy, like all politics, is local.[Discuss?] To
ignore local exigencies is to ignore lived experiences. Pedagogies
that ignore lived experiences will ultimately prove to be 'so
disturbing for those affected by them - so threatening to their
belief systems - that hositility is aroused and learning becomes
impossible' (Coleman, 1996, p. 11)".
This seems to be a very dogme position. For a start, it is difficult
to see how a global coursebook squares with the notion of
(The Coleman quote comes froma collection called "Society and the
Laguage Classroom", CUP - might be worth a look at).
More on practicality and possibility later on.