That'SLife

Ken Wilson says:

Hi Gavin!

I’m just leaving a message because after all those failed earlier attempts, it now seems that I can.

All I have is a question – not having been invited to the ‘Unplugging the Coursebook’ session, I was just wondering where it was taking place.

Best,

Ken

[Reply]

Mike Reply:
July 4th, 2011 at 5:28 pm

@Ken – I think Gavin’s invite was from a BC event in Cardiff last month – a seminar given by Luke Meddings – http://unplugging.eventbrite.com/ am I right?

In response to the post, Gavin, I’m not in so much of a position to defend dogme (whether it needs defending or not…), but will just say that there was a section in Teaching Unplugged devoted to working with coursebooks, so the stance hasn’t really changed since the book was published, has it?

Best,

Mike

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 10:53 am

Mike,

Clearly the ‘sanitising’ process has been going on for quite some time now in an effort to build a critical mass of sympathetic followers…

Once it was realised that 90% of the world doesn’t work in the idealised ‘burn the coursebook’ scenario envisaged, the coursebook patently had to be rehabilitated in order to ensure a wider audience.

Similarly, a slew of ‘I’d be more of a dogme acolyte if it recognised the value of technologies more’ comments has obviously led to the fuzzy-edged attitude to tech we now see.

Sometimes it seems like a checklist is being ticked somewhere. Soon we’ll be down the bottom of the list where the grammar translation fans lie in wait…

Gavin

[Reply]

Adam says:

Gavin, please take it for granted that I’m not the only one weeping with joy after reading this post.

Remember: the only thing that dogme* is against is the idea of actually becoming ‘defined’ so that people could suggest that it is against something that could later prove to be pedagogically sound.

Madness.

*and I regard myself as a dogmetista, too.

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Adam,

i think most thinking teachers have a bit of the old dogme in them… but perhaps in a less prescriptive way than the literature to date has proposed… Perhaps dogme is merely softening its edges to fit a wider constituency – is that a bad thing?

I don’t know – but I would like a clearer message as to what does – and doesn’t – fit into the dogme ‘state of mind’ these days as I think the goalposts are shifting too quickly for the likes of me to fully comprehend.

Gavin

[Reply]

Brad Patterson says:

Hey Gavin-

Where did you see any approval in Scott’s article for IWBs? I saw him cite a number of other studies that clearly didn’t support IWBs, and really showed that it is fairly inconclusive still, despite the fervor some folks (especially the commercial merchants involved) feel for it.

The sentence that you’ve quoted fairly sums up his main point— if you choose to use IWBs it reflects your ideology/pedagogy for the classroom environment. I read it very clearly as a disapproval. So, I don’t think Scott’s or Dogme folk are eating that cake at all.

Personally, I’m not impressed with IWBs and see them as a passing gagdet, but then again, I’ve never used one… just seen them demonstrated.

Cheers Brad

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:06 am

Brad,

I see no approval of IWBs in Scott’s post – and that was precisely my point: the quotation is pretty damning in terms of IWBs, reducing them to an ‘edutainment’ role, and implying quite some criticism of those who use them. And this mantra has been repeated all along. Yet one of the ‘founding fathers’ of dogme has recently run a workshop on the joys of dogme with an IWB. The same has recently happened with the much-maligned coursebook.

A couple of years ago there was a vague flurry of interest from the founding fathers in a concept which came to be known as ‘DOGME 2.0′, but things have gone quiet in recent months and the poster-boy of anti-tech dogme (Mr Postman) is still very much flavour of the month.

And this has left me confused. To the casual outsider this might be construed as having your cake and eating it.

You get to rubbish printed materials, then hijack them in the service of dogme. This ensures a much bigger potential audience for dogme. It can’t have escaped the attention of the dogmeists that most teachers worldwide are not in a position to burn their books. So what’s the way round that? Well, it’s to say that coursebooks are alright if you have to use them. Hence we now have ‘Unplugging (with) the Coursebook’. You might – and I couldn’t possibly comment – you just might construe that as opportunistic…

Don’t get me wrong – as a committed EdTech person I’m happy to see dogme embracing technology, finally. I’m glad to see a change of position with regard to the IWB (though I must note I’m not a huge fan of them, for entitrely different reasons), and in a way I’m happy that some of my best friends and colleagues – the coursebook writers – are now welcome at dogme tea parties.

My only real problem is I’m now confused as to what dogme is – if we’re all using coursebooks and IWBs and the rest, and chucking in a bit of dogme at the same time, doesn’t dogme cease to be ‘radical’ and ‘transformative’, etc.? By that I mean has it now gone from a ‘state of mind’ to a ‘tool’…

As I said, I’m confused…

Gavin

[Reply]

Brad Patterson Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:59 pm

Gavin-

Don’t know how I missed “courtesy of a workshop” as I reread your post. Now, I’m a bit confused too… i could see a modern marriage of course books and dogme, but dogme and IWBs seem to conflict much more fundamentally.

Honestly, I can’t say I know either approach so well as to criticize them, but I’ve been attracted to the idea of dogme for its student-centered, focus on emergent language and following the flow of the classroom direction (things which others may say are just good teaching).

In the end, I enjoy the irony of Diarmuid’s comments above as much as you, and am not SO surprised if a Dogme 2.0 emerges. Time will tell. cheers, b

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 3:36 pm

Brad,

I think we’re all attracted to what must be seen as basic tenets of good, sympathetic and supportive teaching. The dogme tag does help bring those things together and label them, making them easier to identify and follow – and that, perhaps, is one of the great strengths of dogme: it crystallises plenty of documented ‘best practice’ themes into a simple idea which most people can apply, conditions permitting.

Where it has perhaps fallen down is in starting with a somewhat extreme viewpoint and now – at least to some – diluting that message to appeal to a much wider constituency. Dogme did indeed start out as ‘anti-coursebook’ and has certainly over the years tended to ‘anti-technology’. The principle design of dogme was the people in the room, and their conversations – not the coursebooks, not the IWBs, and not much else.

My gripe – if I can call it that – is that as this has proved unpalatable to the wider ELT community, it appears that there is much more of a move towards a happy centre where IWBs, coursebooks are all increasingly ‘alright’ and can be ‘dogme-ified’ with a little work. It’s an odd ‘rapprochement’ – but I suspect market forces demand it…

Gavin

Brad Patterson says:

I can understand your gripe, above all because those who you saw as naysaying what you see as valuable are now less firm on that line.

In any case, we’re aiming at providing the best we can for our students, for the industry, and I think many people will stay middle-of-the-road, and over time most people move back that way from whatever extreme point-of-view they at one point gravitated towards.

There may be commercial/market forces involved, but I don’t think that takes away too much. If anything the fact that it seemed “outside that sphere” for awhile is commendable.

Cheers for the discussion, Gavin. b

[Reply]

Graham Stanley says:

Hi Gavin, and great to see you enter the fray again.

I’d like to start by putting the record straight re. Luke for running a workshop on IWBS and “how they fit so nicely into the tenets of dogme teaching”. It wasn’t a workshop, it was a discussion on ‘Dogme ELT and IWBs’ and I invited Luke, on behalf of the IATEFL LT SIG, to lead the discussion. The reason why I did so? We’d invited Scott to speak at the PCE in Harrogate and this was a follow-up to this.

Scott’s part in the PCE had gone down so well, it struck me that we could do something similar the year after, and so I tentatively proposed this to Luke at the 2010 IATEFL conference, and he said yes. I have to say, he had his reservations, and I did wonder if he’d feel the same way when I approached him months later to have his confirmation. I’m happy to say that he is a man of his word and he agreed to lead the discussion.

On the actual day, Luke took the pen of the SMARTBoard (for the first time in his life) and led the discussion. The notes he took on the board can be seen here http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/dogmeIWB

I’d like to applaud his bravery for accepting my invitation. Aside from the discussion, I was also very impressed at his participation during the PCE. He attended the whole event, was an active participant in the other sessions and took part in the panel discussion at the end.

He was also true to himself and his approach to teaching. Like all fine educators, he approached the day with a very open mind, and although I don’t think he left with the idea of teaching with an IWB, I think he was more able to see the ways that a teacher could use the tool to promote emergent language, and could see some of the benefits that using an IWB for this type of teaching (the ability to record everything on the board to look at later.

I really think we need more of this. I for one have had enough of the 2 warring camps and the ‘Tech vs Anti-tech’ argument – I think we really have moved on. It’s no longer a question of whether language teachers should use technology, but that teachers should use it judiciously and only when it advances the language learning in the classroom. There have been a number of posts (by myself, Nicky Hockly, Sue Lyon-Jones) on this.

I also think that more teachers need to do what Luke did. Too much at conferences you see the same presenters talking to the same audience (preaching to the converted) about the same things. One of the reasons why the LT SIG got Scott and then Luke in to talk at the PCEs was to break this cycle – we should all be open to new ideas and to learning about what other ‘special interest groups’ can offer. This is also one reason why I went to the excellent Teaching Unplugged conference in Barcelona – I think the Dogme ELT approach has a lot to teach those of us who are interested in using technology in the language classroom, if we are open to listen to what is being said.

[Reply]

Adam says:

Quoting Graham Stanley:

‘I think the Dogme ELT approach has a lot to teach those of us who are interested in using technology in the language classroom, if we are open to listen to what is being said.’

I’d say this statement would be equally true were we to switch around ‘Dogme ELT’ and ‘technology’. I have dibs on the book title ‘Teaching re-plugged’ BTW!

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 11:28 am

Adam,

Correct – wherever we see ‘X’ in our profession we can generally exchange it for ‘Y’.

That’s why we EdTech folks have spent our time over the years arguing for a principled integration of technlogies in the classroom, without trying to tell everyone that what came before technologies is rubbish and won’t work anymore.

I do believe we’ve been consistently inclusive, merely proposing that technologies can enhance classroom teaching, and never really recommending that people throw off their shackles of books, cassette players and marker pens and run naked and free in the bits and bytes of the twenty-first century.

What’s ironic in the case of dogme is that many proponents of dogme have, on occasion, accused EdTech fans of being fickle and easily seduced by the next best thing – we’ve been labelled as inconsistent. That’s really what I was writing about in the original post.

I’m delighted to see dogme embracing coursebooks and IWBs and all the rest – as long as we all know what’s happening in the process, and as long as it’s openly acknowledged that either dogme is softening its hardcore heart to win over a larger market share, or the original stances of dogme were untenable in the real world – or just plain wrong.

Either way, dogme cannot carry on pretending it’s all radical and transformative and against the big corporates with their grubby products whilst sneaking round in dark alleys with a copy of Headway and an IWB pen in its pocket…

Gavin

[Reply]

Brad Patterson says:

And the conversation continues !

Graham, thanks for digging a bit further in my superficial judgement of IWBs. You hit the hammer on the nail w/ the salesperson presentation— my only experience, and it wasn’t impressive. I would love to see you use one in class, and re-evaluate my impressions.

I’ve just read your post, http://blog-efl.blogspot.com/2011/07/looking-back-on-2011dogme-elt.html and liked how you framed the discussion on values of technology passing these kinds of tests:

“”
- Will it add anything to the learners’ understanding?
- Will it save time?
- Will they ‘get it’ more easily?
- Will they be more motivated if I do it this way?
- Will it be more memorable?

If the answers are ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then using technology is valid. “”

I feel there would need to be a mention of cost here as well, as Gavin commented. In any case, I value your approach to making the best of these tools by training teachers properly.

In the end, it’s still just a gut feeling, and it’s similar to virtual world language instruction: it’s attractive and hip, but if there are other methods that achieve similar results, why more, why technology ? I think I’m always going to side with an approach that is simpler and remains focused on more direct human interaction than through an abstract medium.

I’m getting on a plane here in an hour, so I won’t catch this discussion again for at least a day or so. Tip of the hat to all for continually reflecting on what is best for our SS. cheers, b

[Reply]

Graham Stanley Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 4:58 pm

Thanks, Brad – unfortunately, many people have got the wrong ideas about IWBs from the salesperson demo at conferences. There are other teachers who haven’t been given any training in how to use them (too many organisations think it’s not necessary to give any training on how to use them pedagogically well: they think it’s not necessary as it looks like the other whiteboard, I guess) – these two factors mean there’s been a lot of negative things written about the tool.

As far as cost is concerned, you’re right, and there’s no getting around the fact that it’s more expensive than the projector / computer set-up. In its favour, the IWB does offer possibilities that make it worthwhile, if you ask me. I also think if you ask a sample of teachers who have actually used the thing, there’d be few who’d choose to teach without one if given the choice.

Enjoy your flight and your weekend!

[Reply]

Sue Lyon-Jones says:

Hi Gavin & everyone,

Interesting discussion, and lots of great points made on both sides

Is Dogme really mutating into something different? As you say, it probably depends on how you look at the history.

I taught with technology for a long time before I encountered teaching unplugged, and when I eventually did come across it, I thought hmmmm…. I’ve been teaching along similar lines for years. Although I wasn’t around in the early days of Dogme, I have done a substantial amount of reading round playing ‘catchy-up’, and I’m not convinced that there is much in the way of reinvention going on, if I’m being honest…

As you point out, the the original dogme was about ‘the people in the room’, and I’m not sure that anything in that respect has really changed. it strikes me that good teaching really ought to be about the ‘the people in the room’ first and foremost, whatever tools you opt for using (or not) in the classroom.

Scott Thornbury described Teaching Unplugged back in the early days of Dogme as “a pedagogy unburdened by an excess of materials and technology”. Again, I don’t think that anything has really changed in this respect.

Playing devil’s advocate, it could equally be argued that effective teaching with technology should be unburdened by an excess of bells and whistles and focus on the needs of the people in the room and whatever you are trying to teach – in other words, if what you are aiming to do can be done best with a simple tool, then you should use that rather than a tool with a steep learning curve that takes ages to set up. It could also be argued that Unplugging the coursebook is not really that different than persuading coursebook-centric teachers to incorporate a dash or two of technology into their teaching practice.

I agree that ‘EdTech sceptics’ tend to point to publisher demos of IWBs and rubbish CDROM materials to justify their scepticism of technologies in education, but are all dogmeists edtech sceptics, or anti-IWB?

Agree with what Graham and Luke have said about moving on

Sue

[Reply]

Jeremy Harmer says:

Well, it’s been a good conversation so far – and Graham (well everyone) is right when they say that you should not judge (e.g.) IWBs by the way they are sometimes sold. Likewise I am happy to applaud (genuinely) Luke’s willingness to charge into the fray and give IWBs a go. Well who wouldn’t, but then if you are going to follow the Dogme route then being prepared to have a go with technology is in the spirit of all inquisitive teachers I have known (from way before Dogme came round).

Which brings me to the only thing in this discussion that has (mildly) irritated me, namely Luke’s assertion that unplugging the coursebooks has been around for as long as Dogme has been around. I find fault with that on two counts: firstly that was not what Scott and Luke were saying in their cheerful espousal of Ashton Warner’s roaring in the chimney (burning coursebooks haha – except I didn’t get the joke). And secondly, unplugging coursebooks was around long before anyone wrote a (n admittedly brilliantly funny) piece about some Scandinavian filmakers in IATEFL Issues. It’s what good teachers have always done and that has nothing to do with Dogme at all.

Jeremy

Jeremy

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 12th, 2011 at 12:01 pm

Jeremy (Jeremy!),

Yes, that was partially my point – the world of dogme ELT has not always been as comfortable with coursebooks as is suggested in the ‘new dogme’, nor has it always had so much time for technology. And, whilst I agree with you that it’s grand to see dogme embarcing the classrooms of so many people, it would be equally nice to see a recognition of this change…

Gavin

[Reply]

Luke Meddings says:

Gavin, I’ve put some references in a new blog post – to make the point that I’ve been acknowledging an evolution for some time now, to share some early references to coursebooks, and to argue the case for developing one’s position without abandoning one’s principles. Although if the money’s really as good as you seem to think it is…

Jeremy, the funny thing is – I didn’t think Scott’s piece on a dogma (sic) for ELT was funny – provocative, certainly, but to anyone grappling with the issues it raised it was pretty serious. We’ve never said dogme was the first critique of coursebooks, or that it is the only possible one – but people are still taking the idea seriously, and are still grateful to see an alternative approach advanced, even if (often because!) it validates what they are already doing.

Luke

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 11:04 am

Luke,

Many thanks for this – I wasn’t for one minute suggesting that anyone was lining his/her pockets – my principal comment here was that the mutation of dogme to make it more acceptable to a larger section of the ELT profession was a response to market forces. If you want a little idea to grow into a bigger idea then you have to make it as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. It’s sort of like Labour to New Labour, and I understand fully why it happens.

Maybe the ‘funny’ part that Jeremy refers to is the amusing accounts of stacking fireplaces with the creative work of professionals and chuckling warmly as it burns. Can’t deny that was there at the beginning, really…

Gavin

[Reply]

Diarmuid Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:48 am

Well, actually, Gavster, you can deny it. Because, of course, it was never done. What was done was that Ashton Warner was quoted as describing how she burnt “most of [her] infant school material”. The full article can be found at http://www.thornburyscott.com/tu/Its%20magazine.htm.

This was then seized on by those who found dogme to be distasteful as evidence of some sort of Nazi cult dedicated to burning the books of intellectuals. If dogmetics were book burners and the Nazis were bookburners, the logic went, then dogmetics were Nazis (and presumably Goebbels was a fan of learner-centred education).

All of which is utter tosh, not to say pish. I don’t know of any dogmetics who have actually burnt a book. Then again, I do remember linking arms with my fellow Hitler Youth members at primary school and singing, “Build a bonfire.” Little did we know…

For the less liberal liberals, it is worth noting that a book is just a book. I would argue that what made the Nazis most reprehensible was not the burning of books, but the burning of humans that provided the context for the burning of books. They burnt the books of intellectuals in an attempt to destroy the capacity of individuals to think thoughts that were not in keeping with their ideology. Ashton Warner burnt materials (that I have always understood she had written herself) that attempted to IMPOSE a foreign, colonial mindset on young preliterate Maori children.

To be entirely frank, I don’t think that the world would descend into fratricide and genocide if somebody burns, pulps or otherwise destroys the entire output of the ELT materials writers – as long as there is a better alternative. I am reminded of Durutti’s comments that we also know how to build and we will build a better alternative.

That said, I am in agreement with you that Dogme remains a broad church and this opens it to the risk of being accused of inconsistency. In the past, I have been of the opinion that Dogme should define itself, even at the risk of alienating some, with the argument that “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” But I have mellowed in my years, and accept that Dogme is not a revolutionary movement that contributes to aiding the cause of those who seek to build a new society within the shell of the old (to quote the IWW). But it is a movement in which those revolutionaries can find a home (as long as they can stomach the thought of working alongside people who do not agree with them at all).

In short, for me the fact that Dogme can be inhabited by those who both rave and rant about IWBs is no more a surprise than the news that Coventry might also contain both camps. Jeremy writes about the fact that what has come to be labelled dogme teaching was always present and was just what good teachers did. This fails to account for dogme’s durability. I suggest that this MAY come from the fact that many good teachers felt guilty or uncomfortable about their secret disdain of ELT materials and that dogme provided them with a theoretical framework (albeit a somewhat skeletal one) within which they could rationalise their actions. I still think that dogme risks compromising itself if it allows itself to become commodified or methodologified. I still think that dogme speaks louder when it speaks clearer and I still think that the original espousal of a poor pedagogy is the best clarion call for the dogme movement. But perhaps I am behind the times.

Finally, it should also be noted that dogme’s first vows of chastity urged teachers to teach “using only the resources that teachers and students bring to the classroom – i.e. themselves – and whatever happens to be in the classroom.” Perhaps this might sway the jury’s decision about whether or not IWBs are inconsistent with the Dogme Way?

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 12:36 pm

Diarmuid,

A long and lucid comment which I have very little to comment on myself, save to say that teachers and learners generally bring coursebooks to the classroom, which must make them the most consistently present element of dogme…

Gavin

Rob says:

Hello Gavin,

I’ve come late to this thread, which I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading.I wonder what prompted you to start the thread. Do you remember? Thanks to all who have shared their thoughts here.

Speaking of which, I have nothing to add but my personal account of discovering the dogme discussion list after my DELTA tutor suggested it upon my indication (as part of a survey she’d given us) that I didn’t regard coursebooks as integral to learning. I found then, and still do, the ‘long conversation’ on the listserv to be interesting, thoughtful, and occasionally provocative. As I got to know the people who contributed regularly, I liked them. So when the debate around technology started, I have to admit I was probably trying to support my friends more than defending what you’ve called the ‘dogme camp’ (marshmallows over a ‘roaring’ fire?). But maybe the two (camp and friends) are virtually the same thing to some folks.

Now that I’ve gotten to know Graham, you, and others who know much more about Edtech than I do, I like you, too. Generous of me, no? You’ve helped me learn about digital technology and how to use it; you’ve also confirmed some of my criticisms of tech through our debates, your patience, and a willingness from all of us to, as Graham says, ‘move on’. Thank you.

Cheers,
Rob

[Reply]

Gavin Dudeney Reply:
August 1st, 2011 at 11:15 am

Rob,

I was at Ken Wilsonm’s party, as it happens. I’d been thinking for some time that dogme seemed to be morphing into something more ‘acceptable’ to larger audiences, when – at the party – I dropped in on a conversation between a coursebook writer and a methodology writer and they were both saying the same thing: that dogme seemed to want to have its cake and eat it these days. Not so much great minds, perhaps, as many minds…

Gavin

[Reply]

Rob Reply:
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:05 am

Welcome back!

Thanks for the reply.

Rob

[Reply]