I’m just wondering what people’s experience has been with the Dogme approach.
Have you used it, and do you feel it’s effective? If so, what steps did you take that has made it successful? And if it hasn’t worked for you, did you analyze the reasons?
I’ve used it myself with some learners in ESP contexts, using authentic workplace materials supplied by the learner. Personally, the successes I’ve had were due to factors such as the learner being aware of their own weaknesses and knowing what they need to work on, having high motivation, and being open to making mistakes, and being able to take in and learn from feedback.
A key point to success in Dogme depends on the learner being able and willing to generate their own content and rely less on the teacher. They really do have to take their learning into their own hands, so to speak, which often is difficult in the Japan context due to the prevalence of teacher-led classrooms. I’ve found most Japanese learners aren’t well suited to the approach.
But what is your take? I’d especially really like to hear back from ESP teachers.
5 comments
It works in extremely specific circumstances. As you said: they need to be willing to take their learning into their own hands. It can only work with students who know what they want to accomplish and want someone to guide them through it. It does not work in a class where the teacher is expected to set or direct the curriculum. ESP contexts with self-motivated students is about the only situation I’d ever recommend a Dogme-only approach.
In general, modern trends reject the idea of single-method language teaching. These kinds of boutique/gimmick methods especially have fallen out of favor. We had a good 30 years of them and by the time Dogme came around, research was already starting to move away from them. The literature suggests that a more principled wholistic approach will always be better, in general. Any kind of method that ‘rejects’ something (be it prepped materials like Dogme, or explicit instruction of form like Suggestopedia) are going to be less effective than a balanced and wholistic approach. Gimmicks can work wonders for specific students in a specific context, but in general, in a classroom setting, you’d be far better served with a blend of methods that covers all bases – take the strengths from each method. No reason to marry yourself to only one.
Ah, so that’s the name of the thing I was doing before I knew what I was doing, partly because I wasn’t fully taught, or didn’t fully understand, what it was I was supposed to be doing! I called this, “winging it.” (Partial) kidding aside, now that I have been doing this — teaching — for a while, I have a more holistic (intentional!) look at what we do. My “winging it” was earnest, and definitely had parts of this Dogme approach to it, but looking back, this would not have been the best approach for the students involved, nor the approach asked for by my then employer.
As answered already, this approach is best used by one who knows how to effectively employ it in the specific situations it work in.
First time hearing of this. Seems like something only very advanced students would be able to pull off.
> Have you used it, and do you feel it’s effective? If so, what steps did you take that has made it successful? And if it hasn’t worked for you, did you analyze the reasons?
It’s not an approach I’d apply routinely, but I have had lessons where it happens spontaneously. For example, my JHS Gr 2 students couldn’t settle down because there was some big drama in the previous lesson. I asked them what happened, they reported as best they could, I elicited from them past tenses, pronouns, and prepositions they needed, and they negotiated spelling and syntax with each other.
They were very motivated to get clarity for themselves about what had happened and wanted to share it with me to see what my thoughts were on the matter. The feedback I gave them happened during the reporting, confirming what they expressed correctly, and finally my take on the incident, verbal and written.
What impressed me was that, though they know I speak Japanese, they wanted to report the incident in English. I asked them outright, “Why not tell me in Japanese?” and the response was “After all, this is English class, right?” Bravo, kids! We then moved on to the planned lesson.
In subsequent lessons when I asked them for any stories on news, they were like, well, when something interesting happens, we’ll tell you!
I’d say with highly motivated junior high learners, you could carve out a few minutes for student-led lesson time, but junior high school trains students to be receivers, not generators, of goals and content. Another point – the classes I teach are small, fewer than 20 students. With 35-40 kids? No way.
With EAP and ESP here in Japan, I’ve attempted to get learners to come up with their own goals and content, but passive reception of lessons is all they know and Dogme fails. Young adult/adult learners here expect to be “taught”.
I feel the same as others seem to feel.
I’ve found that Dogme only works really well with learners who are not only aware of their weak points, but also know how to study, are motivated to study, and can therefore learn independently.
As an example, you can explain how to study the vocabulary that comes up during a lesson until you are blue in the face, but the learners won’t take it on board unless they think it’s important and have the motivation to work with it outside class.
With a Dogme lesson, learners would chose the text, chose what words to focus on, what aspect to focus on (i.e., form, meaning or use), make their own notes, and would then follow up on it themselves outside class – the teacher’s job is to answer questions and provide guidance. This is how deep learning takes place, and that produces real tangible progress.
In teacher-led lessons,teachers use class time to lead the learners though the process that Dogme learners would be doing themselves. For example, the teacher would chose the text, have the students read it, pre-select the words to focus on, and have written exercises ready for them to do in class, e.g., match the word to the definition, gap fills, etc. As this process is teacher-led instead of student-led, the teacher may not be addressing the learner needs or interests, which is less motivating and may not result in deep learning.
Then of course, as we all know, the student thinks when class is over, their job is done, and so does nothing more until the next lesson and all is forgotten.
I would say Dogme is more effective than teacher-led lessons, but only if certain conditions are met – and Japanese learners are less likely to meet those conditions. They vastly prefer being led, and if a teacher doesn’t lead, they go nowhere.