Jeremy Harmer speaks at English Central about the history of the Dogme approach in ELT, the lessons learned from "teaching unplugged" and the implications for the future.
I loved my course book as a child learning English. I still know some of the texts by heart because I read them over and over again. I liked the characters and their stories, Kevin, Ronny, Kate ... And I loved the audio tapes that came with the books. I played the stories and songs on repeat.
"I'm not going to be ditching materials I like anytime soon" (sic). Thornbury explained in 2013 that he wasn't against using "texts" but "textbooks". Presumably, a text can be taken from a textbook or otherwise so you're free to pick and choose, the more pertinent point was that it would be even more valuable if the text came from the learner
Thank you very much, Mr Harmer. I have a question. How would Mr Thornbury feel and what would he do if a Spanish teacher does "Dogme" type lesson with him, or any other (not English) teacher? It's easy for him to do "Dogme" when he teaches English, being a native speaker and a professor, but does/will it work in other language environments?
You could say that again! Think of that poor teacher who has to teach 40 hours per week to make a living. The course book gives you a rough plan of what to do. Maybe Scott can throw it away because he is a celebrity teacher trainer.
Comparing a coursebook to a Shakespeare play?😉I'm trying to imagine a university professor lecturing on the leitmotifs and plot development of a text from a coursebook. 🤦♂I think Scott's proposition is simply not to use any material, be it a coursebook or whatever else, as the sole input in the language classroom. See my revision to the Dogme Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_language_teaching
I would be very surprised if language entered the brain in more than one way meaning that while we may approach the learning teaching acquiring emergence of language from different perspectives it still forms in the 'brain' in the same way. I think it's possible to skim the cream of the surface of a variety of approaches. Anything that engenders meaningful communication in the target language is likely to see results. Taxing the student('s brain) through tedious activities akin to weight lifting suits few and puts off many making them believe and reinforce that they are not very good at languages. The truth of the matter is that EVERYONE is good at languages. If you speak and communicate in a language then you are good at languages. I try to see second or more languages as an extension of the one you started with rather than as a seperate entity. I only have two but have experienced and long since forgotten two others. We should think of languages as sounds and ideas performing functions and not structures so that we try not to obssess on the differences too much. I only just came to dogme, and I don't see it as an approach so much as an attitude. I use a coursebook. I dispense with all the grammar and use solely the images and texts that it contains to start conversations and encourage critical and creative thinking on a variety of levels. I use story telling and reading and even dictation. We need input and a lot of it and we need to tolerate not understanding some of it becase the more we experience a thing the more the meaning of that thing comes to us without any effort whatsoever. The brain is a very powerful and silent processor. We need to focus on experience new and well formed language, not reviewing and correcting mistakes that do not serve us at all.
The word is Danish for dogma. No reason not to pronounce it with the English pronunciation since that is shat it is encouraging, a dogmatic approach in the classroom.
Totally agree with you Mr Harmer, Dogme is just another ingredient to add to the magic of cooking a lesson.
I loved my course book as a child learning English. I still know some of the texts by heart because I read them over and over again. I liked the characters and their stories, Kevin, Ronny, Kate ... And I loved the audio tapes that came with the books. I played the stories and songs on repeat.
Very well put. I agree that teachers have to "lift their eyes from the page," without burning their textbooks.
"I'm not going to be ditching materials I like anytime soon" (sic). Thornbury explained in 2013 that he wasn't against using "texts" but "textbooks". Presumably, a text can be taken from a textbook or otherwise so you're free to pick and choose, the more pertinent point was that it would be even more valuable if the text came from the learner
Thank you very much, Mr Harmer. I have a question. How would Mr Thornbury feel and what would he do if a Spanish teacher does "Dogme" type lesson with him, or any other (not English) teacher? It's easy for him to do "Dogme" when he teaches English, being a native speaker and a professor, but does/will it work in other language environments?
can someone explains to me this dogme approach , I did not get it, is it useful for esp class ?
What a fabulous idea. Throw away all the course books. 😊
This is rather like Putin talking about "honesty and integrity in politics."
You could say that again! Think of that poor teacher who has to teach 40 hours per week to make a living. The course book gives you a rough plan of what to do. Maybe Scott can throw it away because he is a celebrity teacher trainer.
Comparing a coursebook to a Shakespeare play?😉I'm trying to imagine a university professor lecturing on the leitmotifs and plot development of a text from a coursebook. 🤦♂I think Scott's proposition is simply not to use any material, be it a coursebook or whatever else, as the sole input in the language classroom. See my revision to the Dogme Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_language_teaching
I really like the work of Jeremy Harmer, but I don't think that comparing acting Shakespeare with teaching a language is fair.
I would be very surprised if language entered the brain in more than one way meaning that while we may approach the learning teaching acquiring emergence of language from different perspectives it still forms in the 'brain' in the same way.
I think it's possible to skim the cream of the surface of a variety of approaches. Anything that engenders meaningful communication in the target language is likely to see results. Taxing the student('s brain) through tedious activities akin to weight lifting suits few and puts off many making them believe and reinforce that they are not very good at languages. The truth of the matter is that EVERYONE is good at languages. If you speak and communicate in a language then you are good at languages.
I try to see second or more languages as an extension of the one you started with rather than as a seperate entity. I only have two but have experienced and long since forgotten two others. We should think of languages as sounds and ideas performing functions and not structures so that we try not to obssess on the differences too much.
I only just came to dogme, and I don't see it as an approach so much as an attitude. I use a coursebook. I dispense with all the grammar and use solely the images and texts that it contains to start conversations and encourage critical and creative thinking on a variety of levels. I use story telling and reading and even dictation. We need input and a lot of it and we need to tolerate not understanding some of it becase the more we experience a thing the more the meaning of that thing comes to us without any effort whatsoever. The brain is a very powerful and silent processor. We need to focus on experience new and well formed language, not reviewing and correcting mistakes that do not serve us at all.
Scott pronounces dogme like dogma, which sounds a lot better....
The word is Danish for dogma. No reason not to pronounce it with the English pronunciation since that is shat it is encouraging, a dogmatic approach in the classroom.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist Interesting
@@TheCompleteGuitarist couldn't agree more. The naming is [facepalm]