NYC COP TO THORNBURY: ‘Say buddy, what’s the little idea?'

Some people don’t like change. They’ve seen a couple of recent workshop titles, and it’s made them nostalgic for the early days of dogme. Apparently I’ve been diluting dogme principles to line my pockets.

Except they haven’t been to the workshops. They haven’t looked closely enough at the early days of dogme. And they definitely haven’t seen my pockets.

The thing is, I look back on the early days of dogme too. I’ve been arguing that dogme has evolved from a critique of materials overuse into a framework approach for some time now, not in dark alleys but in public – for example in conversation with Andi White and Rob Lewis at Iatefl Brighton (from 08:52-10:00) 

Saying that dogme has evolved doesn’t mean the principles have changed. I haven’t ‘embraced’ IWB’s or coursebooks in recent workshops, merely done what I was invited to do: examine their classroom use and potential from a dogme perspective.

We’ve been doing this since the start. Here’s Scott Thornbury in message 8 on the dogme discussion group, March 2000: ‘I see the need for coursebooks, but not the way they happen to be at the moment.’

In an MET article published in January 2002, Scott and myself acknowledge the coursebook as ‘a naturally-occurring item of classroom furniture’, and conclude: ‘The idea is to use the coursebook, but sparingly, taking its grammar syllabus with a pinch of salt’. 

I believe that dogme – despite what Scott maintains – is a big idea for educators in ELT. We’ve never claimed it was wholly new, rather that it links current practice to a rich tradition of critical and informal education that offers a genuine alternative to the CELTA ‘method’. (Unless, of course, that CELTA course has been unplugged.)

But there isn’t a central committee for dogme. No one has to run anything past anyone else before they blog, speak or – thank goodness – teach. This means that I don’t always agree with everything that gets written in support of dogme (and that people don’t always agree with me). But it does mean that we can surprise each other – and this in turn can change the way we see things.

My experience is growing: I used to teach in one context, now I train in many. This also has an impact on what I think and say about dogme.

Nick Bilbrough describes this process beautifully in a post to the dogme discussion group¹. Defining dogme as being about ‘helping language learners express what they want to say, rather than working to a predefined agenda’, he argues that – in principle – technology is unnecessary.

But principles must be measured against experience, and a stint observing and teaching in a state school in Brazil prompts Nick to consider that ‘perhaps the majority of the world’s language learners do not start with a desire to express things in English. Their emerging language skills lie dormant and English is a school subject like everything else.’ He senses a desire to communicate in their questions to him – ‘Which team do you support?’, ‘What do you eat in England?’ – that is not apparent in their interaction with their Brazilian teacher. ‘In these circumstances’, he concludes, ‘technology may surely play a part in helping to build that desire.’

I saw technology playing precisely this role in an excellent talk by Beyza Nur Yılmaz and Işıl Boy at Iatefl Brighton². It wasn’t a ‘dogme’ presentation, but it got me thinking. Their students don’t encounter much English outside school, and Beyza and Işıl spoke about the need to break down the classroom walls: using Web 2.0 to connect with learners in other countries, they argued, creates a context for meaningful interaction.

This last notion is absolutely key. In some teaching contexts, meaningful interaction is best achieved through conversation between the people in the room. In others, something more is needed – and the ability to link to other classrooms can certainly be consistent with a conversation-rich, materials-light approach to teaching (I also talked about this with Andi and Rob at Iatefl, from 07:40-08:52).

Yes, I’ve had to take some new ideas on board since – erm – 2000. But as educators we have to be learning people, surely? Exploring our passions. Developing our positions. And accepting that even big ideas can evolve.

¹http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/message/14700     

²Integrating Web 2.0 to the curricula of university preparatory schools, prezi.com/zqhptqr1i-qr/iatefl/

OUT IN THE OPEN: I said this at the Brighton conference