Turklish TEFL

Crazy or Enlightened?

I have a number of posts in the works, but have something more pressing that I would really love all your feedback on. I’m trying to convince my fellow manager to follow suit on a few issues and would also like to know if anyone thinks I’m on the right track or not as well.

I’ve been managing my current school, Oxford House College, for about 3 months now. It is an absolutely fantastic school, one of the best in Turkey as far as I’m concerned and I’ve very proud to work there. Everyone from the owner to the managers to the teachers are dedicated to teaching and we are constantly improving.

Before I ask for your input I should let you all know that we use an ongoing enrollment system. While there are some drawbacks such as shifting classes and difficulty in planning or building on previous material, I love the system.

For anyone that doesn’t know, ongoing enrollment means that students do not buy courses, they buy hours. They can enter a class at any time. They don’t go through a course in the traditional sense that there is an official start and finish date.

They can also advance at any time. The system is tailored to the students’ needs. If they work hard, practice a lot, or are just good at learning languages, they can move up quickly. If they are slower, very busy, or just taking more time, they move at a slower rate. The teachers constantly keep the students’ progress in mind and when they feel a student is ready, they move them to the next level or tell them to stay longer, whatever the case may be.

We are trying to work with a set of can-do statements similar to the Common European Framework’s. However, these statements have been annotated or changed to apply specifically to Turkish learners.

If a student can talk about their present routines, their family, and fill out a form, but can’t write an email to a friend well, then the teacher specifically focuses on that can-do task until they are reasonably proficient and then the student(s) can move up.

Keeping this in mind, I’ve slowly been making and been trying to make a number of perhaps radical changes since I accepted the position. I would love to know what your thoughts are on the issues.

#1 Exams

I have eliminated all exams. Of course, if the teacher feels they really need to, they can give one, but exams are not required and the students know that the teacher’s opinion is all that matters. I have done this because I trust my teachers. I have an excellent team right now. My teachers are with the students every class. They know their students. How can an exam tell them anything they don’t already know?

What’s more, students are becoming intrinsically motivated and focusing on progressing in their communicative ability. They know there is no exam at the end, so they don’t skip class and show up at exam time and they don’t save all their studying for a week before the end of a course (technically we don’t have courses, but you get the idea).

My teachers don’t feel the need to teach to an exam, they can focus on what the learners actually want and need to learn. It makes classes more flexible and allows students and teachers much more control over the direction of the course.

#2 Course books

We no longer have a primary course book. Course books have a whole slew of problems associated with them. They aren’t made for our learners, they are often boring, they take a step-by-step approach to language learning that often isn’t realistic, and they are too grammar focused.

We have a number of course book series available and lots of supplementary material in our small library as well as tons of high quality digital lessons on the computer all organized by level, skill, grammar point, and content. Teachers identify the needs of the class and find or create appropriate material.

Too often students and teachers get bogged down in slogging from one page to the next and focusing on grammar mcnuggets (thanks Darren and Scott ) Why are we teaching past simple or letter writing if our students already do it well? Skip it and move on to lessons they actually need. A course should be dynamic and fluid, not linear.

#3 The Internal Syllabus

I’d like to do an entire post on this concept sometime, but for now, just a brief summary. The syllabus comes from the students. I’m terribly partial to Harmer’s EASA approach (which was brought up nicely on English Raven not too long ago) or Test-Teach-Test styles in general.

Come in with an engaging activity and then see what the students do well with and what they struggle with. Make notes on the points they struggle on and then, in that lesson or another, teach, review, or revise the material.

This way you don’t cover stuff the students are already good at. That’s boring and a waste of time for everyone. You really focus on students’ needs.

It’s also much more skills and content focused. You are constantly practicing skills rather than isolated grammar or lexical sets.

In true Dogme style, if students are searching for language to communicate, teach it to them. Don’t worry about the course book or the lesson plan. What could possibly be more important than what the students are trying to say? This also ensures the perfect context. The students know what they are trying to say, they just don’t know it in English. Supply it and I guarantee it will stick better and make more sense to them.

An internal syllabus isn’t just about language points, it’s about content as well. What are the students interested in? What do they want to learn? Get to know them. Get the feedback from them. Ask what they want. Then bring in material based on that information.

An internal syllabus is created in the dialogue between teachers and students.

#4 Cut Down on the Worksheets

Gap-fill worksheets are banned and so are book activities that do the same.

I’m trying to get my teachers to cut down on worksheet use in class in general.

Yes, yes, I know. I’m a Dogmeist now. I need help . Most of the material for a lesson can come from the students themselves. You can get at least a two-hour lesson out of picture with tons of wonderful, student-produced language.

Let’s not bombard our students with worksheets and busy work. Give one sheet to every 2 students so they are always working together and helping each other out.

Worksheets should be short and help to scaffold a primary activity. I hate coming into classes and seeing students spend 20 minutes figuring out a crossword puzzle or filling in some blanks. Then another 5-10 minutes is wasted going over the answers.

If you want your students to practice prepositions of place have them hide objects around the room, describe pictures of their bedroom for a partner to draw, show them a scene from Wallace & Grommit and the Wrong Trousers and have them describe what’s happening, play Simon Says, anything but an unproductive worksheet where very little language is produced or engaged with.

#5 Skills and Content Focused Learning

We have 3 and 4-hour lessons at our school. I encourage my teachers to see this as an extended learning opportunity rather than discrete hours with separate lessons.

Pick a topic like Art. The first lesson can be a listening on abstract art, the second a reading on surrealism, and the third can be a heated debate or discussion on the connection between politics and art.

Throughout the 3 hours, students are building and revising related vocabulary and structures, but they are also coming across lots of new information and getting a chance to focus on particular skills throughout.

Were your students sick and they come in talking about it? Have a conversation about it. Brainstorm illnesses and discuss remedies. Do a doctor-patient role-play. Write about your last visit to the doctor then exchange with a partner and do some peer correction.

Our students should be learning to communicate and learning different skill sets, not obsessing over grammar and vocabulary. Of course, grammar and vocabulary have their place, but skills and content are so much more interesting, contextualized, and, IMO, effective.

What Do You Think?

Well, that’s the end of the main pushes I’ve been trying to make that directly concern teaching in the classroom. What do you all think. Good ideas? Bad ideas? Should I modify them. I’m really looking for your feedback on this one and I’d appreciate any and all comments.

36 Comments

By Karenne Sylvester, February 20, 2010 @ 1:35 am

All sounds spot on to me…
clap, clap!

K
By Anita Kwiatkowska, February 20, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

Nick, I get your point, see the reasoning behind it and respect your ideas. But this time (quite unusually I have to disagree.
I’ve read your post, took extensive notes and then asked myself a question: Would I like to be taught a language in such a school? The answer is no.
Don’t get me wrong – I learned English, Russian, French and Turkish and I know which teaching methods or techniques work for me. These definitely wouldn’t.

1. Exams.
How can you assume that teachers simply know what their students have acquired? Because they are with them all the time? Because the group is small? Teachers usually have quite a number of students (I have 120 so it’s pretty easy to remember one better than another.
Sometimes students do a lot better on tests than we might expect i.e. their knowledge of English is not what we thought.
The sheer fact of having exams always made me more motivated to learn and brush up what I’ve learned. If there are no exams, what’s the point of looking at your notes from time to time? Are you assuming that the students will remember absolutely everything from the lesson? Are they all highly motivated?

2. Coursebooks.
A coursebook is a useful thing in the classroom. Believe me – it’s been my 3rd year without it and it sucks. Especially when you teach the same students for a longer period of time.
A good teacher should be able to select things of interest, change, adapt and supplement if necessary. It’s like a skeleton to build upon. How can you state that chapter 6 from XYZ will be boring for students if you haven’t tried it out?

3. Syllabus.
Good teachers I’ve worked with never taught isolated grammar.
What do you mean by ‘students’ needs’? Who are students? It’s like talking about a nation – who is nation? It sounds like an empty word. Students in one group can’t have the same needs and can’t be interested in the same things. Some need more practice than others – you can’t put them on the same level.
Besides, how are you going to learn what students need and like (realistically speaking)? What if only 1 in group of 10 is into astrology and the rest hate it? What if you have 15-30 students in a group?
Are you sure students always KNOW or AWARE of what they need?

4. Worksheets
I’m also against fill-in-th-gaps concentrating on isolated grammar or vocabulary items. I was taught Turkish that way and I didn’t work.
In small amounts though – why not? I learn when I write and have a chance to think about the grammar point discussed. You can’t assume it’s boring and unnecessary for every single person.

5. Skills and content.
Sounds perfect.
Problem 1. It might be a bit too much to talk about, let’s say, art for 3 hours (I assume you learned that all your students want to discuss it and you’ve prepared beforehand).
Problem 2. A students was sick, you pick it up and start teaching about illnesses. No preparation took place. Where will you take the reading material from to practise skills? Are you sure you’ll use the class hour creatively enough without any preparation?
I hate sticking ideally to lesson plans but there is one thing I’m positive about – when I think what I’m going to to with my students beforehand, my classes are a lot better.

Summing up:

I have nothing against you Nick, maybe I’m simply not a Dogmeist.
It all sounds too idealistic to me and is based on too many assumptions. Might work for small groups, for certain students and for some time. But not for everyone all the time.
It somehow makes the classroom more teacher centered though ideally it probably should not. What if your beginner students want to use the 2nd conditional and you have to spend 60 min trying to explain it. What’s the chance they will get it? Who is the centre of attention? Can’t you use the 60 min in a different way, more suitable for their level?
I guess applying Dogme requires a specific set of personality traits from the teacher. A person who isn’t talkative and confident wouldn’t be able to teach the way you want to. Not always, at least.
What is something turns out to be boring for the students – does it mean they don’t need to learn or practise it? My most hated skill while I was learning English was writing. It was boring and I thought it was unnecessary. Am I thankful for being made to practise it? Guess!
My last point – maybe I don’t agree with all you’ve written because it imposes rules. Too many rules.
My approach to teaching is more eclectic – take a bit of this and a bit of that, see how it works, modify, play. Don’t take things for granted.
Sticking solely to one method or approach usually has more negative than positive sides.
Call me bossy and maybe soon I’m going to be ashamed of what I’ve written here but for now, that’s how I feel about the issue.

If you want to discuss that in greater detail, this time you’re gonna have to buy me a coffee
By Neil Barker, February 20, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

I completely agree with #1 & #4. I always feel bad telling my students that speaking is the most important objective (according to my company’s objectives), yet they have to write a 90 minute Market Leader mid-term & another final exam 5 weeks later. #4 saves trees, so it’s got to be a great idea!
By turklis1, February 20, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

Hey Anita, thanks for the extensive feedback. You brought up concerns that a few teachers have brought up as well. Here is my reply. You raise an interesting point, I don’t think a lot of students would be so sure about a course like this from the outside. Yet, once they get in and get used to it they absolutely love it. They see the benefits in a very short period of time and complain a lot when we get new teachers in who don’t follow these methods.

1. Exams: Well, at my school class size is about 4-9 students on average, so it’s a lot easier to give individual attention, which is a factor. However, I’ve found the idea that teachers can design and give an exam to evaluate students, but they can’t apply those same criteria in the class to be rather silly. What exactly is the difference between having my students write a letter to a penfriend and then telling them there is an exam on Monday and having them write a letter to a penfriend? I want to know if my students understand present perfect for life experience. How can a test possibly tell me more than if I ask the student about travels during his life? Exams are rarely good indicators of students’ actual performance and there is a world of difference between answering a question on an exam and actually being able to use that language in a real life situation. I could care less if my students know what present perfect is on paper or when I ask them a question using the tense so they just copy me. I want to see them use it in a natural situation.

I strongly feel that exams are a negative motivation. There is no difference between worrying about an exam as a reason to study and knowing that if your English doesn’t improve, you will never move up a level. The students know they are marked purely on their capabilities and motivation becomes intrinsic. So far, it seems to be working.

2. Coursebooks. Exactly, coursebooks are nothing more than extra tools for the teacher. They provide a guide and point of reference if the teacher should need one. The main point here is that the application of the course book or syllabus should be non-linear. You have to adapt the course to the students, not the students to the course.

3. Syllabus. There is a big difference between creating lessons on astrology for one student or creating lessons around Turkish history that interests everyone or at least relates to everyone. That’s really the point. The other point is that things progress according to the students. If they all describe past experiences really well, there is no need to spend time on it. This is the mistake you often see. People teach it because it’s in the syllabus and it’s what the syllabus says should be done next yet everyone is bored stiff.

Of course students will never all be on the same page, but how does that make teaching to a strict syllabus any more useful? You run an activity and it’s clear most of your students have problems understanding vocabulary from context. Instead of plodding blindly along the syllabus track, you actually design lessons to address this need. Actually, I find the best lessons are ones that allow students to participate according to their level, but that’s another topic.

4. Worksheets. There are good worksheets and bad worksheets but I’m a firm dogmeist on this one. I can hand out a worksheet that asks students about “the last time” they did something or I can have them write their own questions and then give them to each other. Worksheets work best when they scaffold and take up a very limited amount of time. The class is for production. Worksheets can be done at home if the students want and need them.

5. Skills and Content. It works extremely well in practice. The key is to vary subtopics and activities.

With pick-up dogme lessons it’s really up to the teacher. There is a lot to be said for letting the class flow. A good teacher always has a plan, but is willing to throw it out the window or change on the fly if something better comes along. If you really wanted a reading skills task you could ask the students to write it themselves and exchange. You could just as easily focus on the other 3 skills and bring in a reading the next day. No problems. There is a danger of not using class time effectively, but this is just as real with a lesson plan. Again, in practice, pick-up lessons tend to go extremely well in my experience.

These current changes are designed to run with our ongoing enrollment system and they fit that to a T in my opinion. I would not claim they work for all situations. However, I can’t imagine how a strict adherence to coursebooks that weren’t designed with my learners in mind, lots of worksheets, and exams could benefit most people. The beauty of these changes is the incredible amount of flexibility it allows. Teachers can bring whatever methods in they want. I don’t think the guidelines above are very strict at all. They actually open the door to greater freedom. I can definitely say it makes no more assumptions than any other system and nothing works for everyone all the time.

Many schools impose syllabi and coursebooks because they don’t trust the teachers. I do. We all make mistakes and our learning as we go, so I don’t worry about it too much.

In practice, the teacher is very decentered.

The assumption that 2nd conditional is somehow harder to understand than present simple is a false one. They use it in their L1. It makes sense. If taught in context it can be picked up immediately regardless of level. This is one of the biggest fallacies you see with this step by step approach. I’ll be dealing more with problems in grammar teaching in the next few posts. A grammar presentation should never take more than 5 minutes in my opinion. If you present it and practice it right, the students will get it. Really though, the main point is that if students are trying to use it, give it to them. If a student is trying to talk about supposition or deduction in the past, give them might have +v3. The context is already there and the student immediately understands how to use it because it’s what they needed. There’s no explanation needed. This is what you want to say and this is how you say it.

Dogme doesn’t say you have to teach only what the students like. It’s more the idea that you should actually pay attention to their needs, interests, and desires. Most of my students would be happy to come and stare at a grammar book all day, but will it help them improve their English? Not much. This is where the teacher enters into a dialogue with the students and decides on a joint course of action.
By turklis1, February 20, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

I feel I should probably clarify the ongoing enrollment thing a bit too. Since there is no start or end date, students come in when they register. That means in our current pre-intermediate class that started 7 weeks ago we have 3 students that started from the open date, 2 that started two weeks later, one that started a week ago and one that started this weekend.

In this way, you can see why cumulative exams and following a linear syllabus or course book makes no sense. What use is an exam when all the students entered at different times? What use is following a course book when your students are all coming into the class at different points. You really need to work with the students. I could see why exams and following a course book might be more useful for a standard system, but not with ongoing enrollment.
By turklis1, February 20, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

Thanks Karenne and Neil. I’m glad I’m not alone in thinking this is a good idea. Time will tell how it works out, but so far it’s been going extremely well.
By Peter Fenton, February 20, 2010 @ 9:50 pm

I agree with almost everything but I’m not sure about the lack of tests. I’m not a big fan of tests either (especially those that explicitly test grammar points), but surely a well written test is a much fairer way of deciding whether a student goes up a level than the subjectivity of the teacher. I’m not really convinced by ‘can do’ statements. There are lots of things I ‘can do’ in Polish, just not particularly well!

I was also wondering, presuming your school also teaches young learners, how do the parents respond to the lack of tests? In my experience, parents like to see some kind of evidence of achievement and progress, which is difficult to give without tests.
By turklis1, February 20, 2010 @ 10:06 pm

Hey Peter, good point that I forgot to bring up. We don’t really teach young learners. I’ve got one class right now and all the parents specifically told us they expect their kids to have fun and pick up some English along the way. Not kidding. I was quite shocked as that is the exact opposite of what you usually hear. I’ve found that individual feedback is much more highly valued and since our classes our small, it’s very feasible. Both the adult students and the kids’ parents love to hear specific things about their progress and what areas need work.

I think this is one of the big factors of course books and tests. It’s the idea that the teachers can’t be trusted to meet the needs of their students or assess them. I don’t believe it. We hire good teachers and we trust them. It’s not that I don’t think a test can’t be well written or useful, because they definitely can. It’s just that our course focuses on communication so the major factor in tests would be oral and written work anyway which is, again, highly subjective. We’re just cutting out the middle. If a student feels a teacher is not treating them fairly they have the option of being personally assessed by me to make a final decision. I have yet to have this happen.

Another big factor is that, as Anita mentioned, students cram for tests. They then forget. Tests rarely simulate real world communication needs. I personally don’t think it is a true assessment of a student. And, just as some students may be better at taking tests, some students are terrible at them, so that’s a rather moot point.

I think the can-do statements are a matter of proficiency. Obviously the teacher can judge if they can barely do it, do it decently, or do it very well.

Thanks a lot for the feedback
By Peter Fenton, February 20, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

Good point about feedback making up for the lack of tests. I suppose test results are just another form of feedback for parents yet probably nowhere near as valuable as personalised feedback on students’ progress.

Also true that assessing writing and speaking is always going to be subjective too. However, I would have thought reading and listening tests would be less so.

Anyway, tests or no tests, I’m sure your school will continue to thrive. Good luck with it
By Anita Kwiatkowska, February 21, 2010 @ 11:29 am

The only reason that I decided to post a comment under this post is that I personally know and like you and that I worked for Oxford House College myself, long before you came along. It was great!

I don’t write as an outsider. I write as a teacher who has reached the point of knowing nothing and as a language student who has had a countless number of teachers. Looking back, my French teacher at university was probably a pre-semi-Degmeist and I’m not going to tell you how I (a student) felt during his classes.

I was probably going Dogme myself during private lessons I used to give as a university student. I’m rarely surprised with what people think about their teaching.

You think you can explain 2nd conditional to a beginner level student? He will get it because he uses it every day and you provide the context? He also uses passive voice and mixed conditionals – will you explain it too? How do you know exactly which structure a student wants to use? And how do you explain it, assumingly in English, to students whose knowledge of the language is so limited that they don’t know the words you use to explain.
Even if the students get the meaning and usage, do they have sufficient knowledge of other grammatical structures to use it effectively and accurately?
It takes you 5 minutes?
Don’t reply that traditional syllabi based on grammar aren’t good either. Everyone knows that and tons of books have been written about that.

How do you organize levels in your school if every group learns something different?
What if a different teacher takes over? Is the internal syllabus written down somehow or do you simply go with the flow?

There are more things to consider than ‘the students love it once they get used to it’. Don’t disregard other teachers’ opinions and concerns just because the system works for you at the moment. Dogme along with any other methods/approaches is not perfect. It has drawbacks. Everything does and you should be able to notice that. I’m not sure it has been applied widely enough for people to share some constructive feedback. Having a Dogmesque hour once a week or so might work but applying it on a full time scale will have consequences. You will lose students and teachers for whom such teaching/learning doesn’t work to begin with.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and believe that you have a passion for teaching. Don’t be too hasty though to jump into conclusions that what you like is going to work for everyone.
You are the manager Nick, this is Turkey and they will, eventually, do what you say. You know it better than me.

My advice, bearing my knowledge and experience in mind, would be to step down and allow more time for reflection and further reading. Not sure if replies from bloggers (that includes me) are the best solution.

This is a serious issue as it’s the whole school we’re talking about and I’m not writing all this to attack you. Hope you know that. It’s your life, your teaching and your school – it’s none of my business.

If ten people tell me something is wrong, I’d consider what they say because it means there is a problem. Sure Dogme has good points but how about bad points? Can you see any?
If you want to take the conversation outside of your blog, let me know. There are more things you mentioned that I’d love to discuss but don’t really have time.
By turklis1, February 21, 2010 @ 6:39 pm

Welcome back Anita,

I’ll tackle the grammar issues over the next couple weeks on the blog, so I won’t say much about it now. Of course it depends on the class and the student, but I would definitely argue that grammar levels are more of a chimera than anything. At the very least, from my own personal language learning journeys, I know absorbing the main grammar rules books teach was the easiest and quickest part of learning a language. I know that that is not the norm though just from taking a quick glance at any class of students. I would also say that grammar syllabi have more pitfalls than they are worth in terms of fallout.

Levels are based on general capability and again are connected to can-do statements, which gives the structure to the levels. I think this is another major problem with some courses. They assume a level is dependent on discrete items, usually grammar points. If a student can’t use present perfect then they need to be in pre-int. Yet the same student can converse incredibly well and reads at an intermediate level. I don’t agree with that. I’d argue general performance should be valued over discrete items. Course books are based on a series of concrete goals. All we’re doing is pulling those out and saying, if they got it, skip to the problem areas. The goals are, in most ways the same, they are just approached in a non-linear fashion based on the class.

If a different teacher comes along, I say go with the flow. However, most teachers would not be happy with this. That’s why what you do in the class along with learner problems are written down in the registers. What’s the difference between looking at a written record of what the teacher has done and looking at the previous chapters in the book?

I’m having problems with your arguments in the sense that they apply to anything, not just the stuff in question. It’s not perfect. Neither is anything. We’ve got guidelines to follow and some teachers may not like them. Some teachers are not happy with the guidelines of their current system. How is it different? We will lose teachers and students that don’t care for the system just as any system will lose teachers and students that don’t like it. Some people do better on exams. Well some people do worse. I think the majority of your criticisms can be applied to anything and don’t really target this one in particular.

Dogme has always been more of a mindset than a system and that is what we’re tapping into here. The system aspect would be ongoing enrollment and the changes that come out of adapting to it. Anyway, I don’t believe in top down management. These decisions were discussed and decided on by all my primary staff. The teachers are on board.

I also get the sense you think the teacher’s voice is left out somehow. It’s not. It’s more open. The teachers can do whatever they need to in the class. If they feel comfortable using book material they can. If they feel the need to give an exam, they can. Rather than impose limits, it allows teachers and students freedom to choose. They can deviate, experiment, and play much more within this framework than they can with anything I’ve seen anywhere else, period.
By Darren Elliott, February 22, 2010 @ 6:37 am

Some of your arguments seem contradictory, Anita.

For example –
What if only 1 in group of 10 is into astrology and the rest hate it? What if you have 15-30 students in a group?

A good teacher should be able to select things of interest, change, adapt and supplement if necessary. It’s like a skeleton to build upon.

Well, isn’t the teacher more likely to get stuck with inappropriate content using a coursebook? If we get rid of coursebooks, we can do whatever we want.

I do think there is an optimum context for dogme, and it seems to me that Nick’s context is a very suitable one for the practices he has described. I can’t do all these things, as much as I would love to, because I am constrained by certain pragmatic and instituional factors. Nonetheless, as Nick alludes to, Dogme shouldn’t be seen as set of rules to restrict the teacher and student, but an acceptance of flexibility and unpredictability.
By Karenne Sylvester, February 22, 2010 @ 8:47 am

Wow – okay, glad I came back and unfortunately I haven’t got time to add an extensive response… I just want to tackle one of the many, many things in Anita’s responses – this one though is the biggest one which gets me:

“You think you can explain 2nd conditional to a beginner level student? He will get it because he uses it every day and you provide the context? He also uses passive voice and mixed conditionals – will you explain it too?

How do you know exactly which structure a student wants to use? And how do you explain it, assumingly in English, to students whose knowledge of the language is so limited that they don’t know the words you use to explain.”

Okay… Okay… OK.

I have been meaning to write a post on this subject for absolutely ages and the title of my post goes something like “Grammar, it’s all outta whack”… so now you get my viewpoint on subjects like these.

Anita, do you realize that the need to have various ways to express the various ideas and approaches to life and living is completely inherent in all languages, albeit with some nuances in the cultural approach to output?

Of course, you do, you’ve learned many languages. The need to talk about something that you would like to happen but probably won’t because it’s a bit fantastical exists everywhere, all over the world, just like the lottery.

Unlike you, I can not stand systematic learning, a random construction of building one brick on top of the other, (and who determined this order… who, who so I may cheerfully shoot him) even though I do understand that there are those who enjoy this nonsense.

Whenever I have been forced into learning situations where the teacher has given me one grammar chunk after the other with nary a context or a dumb context which insults my intelligence, just xyz time spent on xyz point because that’s the next step in the book so of course it will work and then, of course, assumes that the learners are somehow just going to “get it” when the time comes around to using it.. ur… ya like wa’?

I feel like my time, when I’ve been learning, has been excessively wasted.

When I see teachers teaching like this I believe them to be mostly wasting their students time.

It does not work. It does not work.

Thousands, ney, millions and millions of people all over the world have been forced into this formulaic approach and more of them DO NOT COME OUT SPEAKING English than do. Yes, some do – but mostly when we get down to the nitty gritty and challenge the fluent speakers we meet and ask “how did you learn English so well” the answers are not I had a super textbook, or I had a great teacher who put all the grammar into nice ducks in rows for me… they’re

I went to live in the US for 3 months

I married someone who spoke the language

I watched TV

i.e. active listening and active production and neuron copying in the TV case.

Many, many, more learners of English are in classes than are out of them – many of them are forced into learning for years and years and years because English is not….

wait for it…

is NOT MATH.

Context first, “where am I , what am I doing,” content second “what do I need to say” and the reason why x goes to y later or not at all.

Try it!
By turklis1, February 22, 2010 @ 9:02 am

Seems like the conversation is turning to a bit of a dogme focus. No complaints there

I feel the exact same way Darren. I would claim that the majority of course book material doesn’t fit my students as it’s generally designed for multicultural courses in the UK. Not that there aren’t good activities in them written by intelligent people, but my students and classroom context was not in mind at the time of writing. And how can they possibly know what my learners need when? Use the good activities in the book, but use them when it’s appropriate for the students, not just because they are on the next page. A teacher must know their learners better than the course book, right?

I think dogme is very much about flexibility and unpredictability, much like the language we teach . I ran a class with a teacher yesterday and we did a process drama centered around Little Red Riding Hood. For two and a half hours we had 9 students absolutely enthralled in the lesson and the only thing I brought to class was a picture of little red riding hood, the big bad wolf, the woodcutter, and a red bandana. The amount of language production was phenomenal. The teacher made a comment that really stands out. He said, “I can’t believe how much language the students know” and that’s really the key. The students almost always have a wealth of language at their command and through the activities that knowledge gets shared with the class. The job of the teacher is simply to help draw attention to it and fix some holes when they appear. Sure I could have given them worksheets and book work, but then I wouldn’t have had 9 students with at least an hour and 40 minutes of constant speaking practice.

I’m not sure if people include drama in dogme, but I would. Regardless, the above lesson is what dogme is all about for me. We don’t need all these materials to have a fantastic lesson and the vast majority of language can come from the students. I think teachers and students often get buried under the sheer amount of activities brought into class that have little relation to actually communicating with the language.

Darren’s also right that dogme doesn’t fit all contexts. If I’m teaching a TOEFL course, there is a lot less room for that kind of teaching because I have a lot of specific exam skills and strategies to practice and the format of the exam constricts language use (one more good reason not to have exams for general English ). However, in a general English classroom, there should rarely be such restrictions.

I’m not sure the same mentality applies to a kid’s class. I’d have to think about it some more, but my initial reactions would be to say that kids encounter just as much English as adults through TV, movies, video games, and the Internet, so they also have a lot of language resources to draw on.
By Anita Kwiatkowska, February 22, 2010 @ 10:30 am

Darren,
Ok, let’s say we get rid of the coursebook. Fine. As I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t been using one for 3 years and it works.
In my view though it’s simply easier and less time consuming to have one and adjust it to the students (by rejecting some things, supplementing etc). If you don’t want to use one at all, it seems reasonable to me to have some sort of a plan at least. Based on students’ needs and short-term if you wish but have one.
If you go with the flow all the time, where is it going to take you? And where will it take the students?
In the context of ongoing enrollment and assuming that students stay at the school for a few weeks it might work. But what if the students stay for a longer period of time, change groups and teachers? They might end up repeating things they had already learned which, as Nick pointed out, will be boring and a waste of time.
That leads to the question I asked before: how are students organized in groups? If a student knows passive voice but has no idea about colors and numbers where will you place him? Don’t you think it’s a bit of a problem?

What personally turns me off is what Nick said about losing students. Guys, there is a number of students (including me) for whom it simply wouldn’t work.

Karenne, I get your point. And honestly speaking I don’t mind my students knowing, let’s say, passive voice at a beginner level. The question is – how to do it in a short period of time (5min) so that everyone gets it? If one student wants to use it, are you sure this context will be enough for everyone to understand? I’m not sure. It isn’t that simple. Not all the time at least though I know from my own experience that it sometimes works.

Another question is: what if the students don’t feel like speaking at all? What if they simply don’t get your explanations? Does it mean you’re a bad teacher?

The most interesting thing for me right now is that I’m the only non-Nest participating in the discussion and the only one having opposing views. Wondering how we should interpret that?

Sorry if I sound contradictory but it’s like stream of consciousness most of the time
By Karenne Sylvester, February 22, 2010 @ 11:06 am

You’ve two options re 5 mins and beginner level (stated again for the record, 5 mins and beginner level)

1. link it to how it is used in the students’ own native language if you know this.

2. simply say –

it’s the tense when you want to make the object more important than the subject –

For example you and I are talking about art and in the conversation, we’re thinking about Guernica, the painting rather than Dali the artist.

You know how sometimes you want to talk about a book not the writer? So, tell me if I want to talk about Harry Potter and not Ms Rowlings, how would I make that sentence?

Exactly!

And Pedro, what if you and Juan were talking about your favourite book, The Firm, who wrote that again?

etc

Ok, must dash to class so can’t answer all your q’s (especially the black/white bad/good teacher if can’t get students to talk … too many cultural layers in that one! But I wouldn’t think this is nonNEST issue – just not enough people have read this post, yet and commented. Reckon I.
By turklis1, February 22, 2010 @ 11:32 am

Karenne – my sentiments exactly.

Anita – you do seem to be the only non-nest and the only one on the opposing side. Well, you’re a tough girl, so I’m sure you can handle it. I’d personally say go with the flow all the time. That’s what the internal syllabus is all about. The students will show you when they are ready for something new and when they aren’t. But you are right. It’s not what most teachers want to hear. That’s where the can-do statements come in. Think about it. Now you probably teach along a syllabus that’s most likely based on grammar. I don’t know. Instead of just following it, pick and choose from it as the need arises. If you really want or need a framework. No problem. The syllabus is your framework, but just don’t follow it in a linear fashion. Address the points that need addressing and leave the rest. Don’t be afraid to go off it if the students are ready. Stuff like that.

Of course the students stay for long periods of time. The average is probably around 200 hours, but some sign up for 400 or more. We have a high renewal rate as well, so of course students take more than just the hours they initially sign up for. Like any good course, students will stay if they are happy. Will the students change teachers at some point? Of course, it’s good for them. The course book nor the syllabus knows the students’ level. Only the teacher can find that out and that happens by getting into the class and learning about the students.

Will they repeat things? I think this is one of the biggest mistakes teachers make these days. They teach the same small mcnugget language points. Our students needs opportunities to use the language and lots of them. Teachers shouldn’t be doing lessons on only present continuous or only clothing vocabulary in the first place. They should be providing the students with opportunities to use that language in an activity where they must choose between it and others. Preferably this activity simulates real time communication like a conversation or a drama activity. If the activities or conversations are interesting and challenging, the students will never get bored. I can do a lesson that involves present continuous, but every time I do it, it’ll be done in a different way, in a new situation. In addition, because you should be taking the cue from the students, you won’t bring in focus lessons on items the students are already competent with. In this way an internal syllabus does a better job of ensuring language students don’t need isn’t repeated than a standard syllabus that keeps recycling it back in for whatever reason.

The focus has to be communication. I am worried about improving the students communicative abilities. For this reason obsessing over if they are using present continuous perfectly yet or if they forgot the word for tie is counterproductive. They’ll get it. Keep giving them opportunities and they’ll be able to use it and understand it (as long as they get feedback on their use of course). Don’t expect students to understand and use something the first time it’s introduced or even the 2nd. What many teachers do is they see a problem with present continuous so then they review the structure and they drill it. It doesn’t work. You are teaching the students about the language, not actually how to use it. Furthermore, since these language points are often taught in isolation, the students can then do it perfectly in the lesson, but get them into a conversation and it’s like you never taught it. This is because they never actually had to make a choice. They aren’t being allowed to figure out and internalize the appropriate times to use things. This is why conversation-driven lessons and drama are so effective. It seems like it’s not working at first because they make so many more mistakes than isolated practice activities. But really, they start to understand and use it so much better in a shorter amount of time in actual communicative situations.

What about placement? This is the problem with thinking in discrete language points. Can the student speak to me intelligibly, but haltingly?. Can they ask me questions and sort of hold a limited conversation? Do they make mistakes, but they don’t interfere too much with meaning? Ok, they are pre-int. You have to take a holistic approach to a student’s language. So what if he doesn’t know colors? They take 2 minutes to learn. I’m not going to put a student who communicates well into a beginner class because he doesn’t know colors or still makes mistakes using present continuous now and then.

This is the other big mistake teachers make. Due to the nature of static syllabi, they assume this level should know X, Y, and Z. Maybe clothing vocabulary has come up in the class. If it’s important to the students and if they are ready to learn it, they will. We shouldn’t expect our students to memorize discrete lexical sets. The students probably picked up shoes, coat, pants, and shirt. Great. They probably don’t remember skirt, tie, and glasses so well. However, I bet you the students with glasses remember that word though and I bet the girls remember skirt better than the guys. Students learn what they need to learn when they are ready for it. If they don’t pick up tie, who cares? They learn it when it becomes important to them and when they are ready. I’m not saying don’t introduce this stuff or don’t review and revise, because we should. I’m saying, stop obsessing over the little things.

If students aren’t interested in speaking, well then they won’t improve very quickly will they? The reasons for not speaking are many and I’m sure every teacher knows them. I’d say it’s the teacher’s job to make an effort to understand a student’s reasons for not speaking and try to address them if possible.

What if they don’t understand your explanations? I’d say stop wasting a lot of time on explanations. As I said, 5 minutes or less. Maybe your explanations are bad. Maybe the student doesn’t understand the language. Maybe they are just off on the wrong track. Again, it could be a lot of things and it should be the teacher’s job to understand why the explanation failed and try to correct that. More important than the explanation is the opportunity to try out the language and then get feedback on it IMO.
By turklis1, February 22, 2010 @ 11:49 am

To add to Karenne’s:

Teacher: Can a chair talk? Walk? Move?
Students: No.
Teacher: (Teacher moves the chair) What happened?
Students: You moved the chair.
Teacher: Great! How about, “The chair…”
Students: The chair moved?
Teacher: Can a chair move?
Students: No, ummm, we don’t know the answer.
Teacher: The chair was moved.
Students: Hmmm…
Teacher: Can Oxford House walk? Talk? Build?…
By Anita Kwiatkowska, February 22, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

Why of course communication and fluency are the key! No doubt about it Glad we agree on that.
I simply don’t think that Dogme is so great and the disadvantages stemming from applying it outweigh the advantages. That’s my point.
You can make students speak a lot in the class without using Dogmesque methods.

I get your idea about Can Do statements but what criteria do you use to place a student on a given level? Are the levels still called Elementary, Pre-int and so on?

You think that being a non NEST here is irrelevant? I might have less experience and knowledge than some or all of you but I have something you have no clue about. I learned your language with the help of many teaches who used tons of different methods.

I guess Dogme could have been created only by a NEST (and we know it was

Will write more later – have a class now.
By turklis1, February 22, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

Karenne – I like your examples about relating it to something the students know. I would personally stay away from metalanguage like subject and object though. I always hated that in books. “Passives are for when the the object is more important so we move the object to the front of the sentence.” blah blah blah. Assuming the students are comfortable with the metalanguage, they then have to do a two-part transformation. First think of the active sentence, then rearrange it to make a passive sentence. Nobody thinks like that when actually speaking. I think your examples do more than get the job done.

Anita – How do we decide levels? Well, as a guideline for Pre-Int for example (Notice no strict grammar or vocabulary requirements)
- You can communicate in a simple and routine way on familiar topcis and activities.
- You can read short, simple texts, advertisements, prospectuses, menus, and timetables.
- You can write short, simple notes and basic personal letters.

Students are so obsessed with levels. It’s silly. I often get students that think they should move up. Maybe they are even ready, but they work so well with their class and the class’ level is not much different. Why worry about moving to this or that level? It’s all internal syllabus. I don’t not teach 2nd conditional because they’re pre-int students. I teach them what they need when they are ready. The levels simply provide a best fit place for particular students. If we’ve got 12 pre-int students and half are high pre-int and half are low pre-int, that class gets split into two, with students going to the appropriate level. Levels aren’t really set here. We do the best we can to place students with other students who are near in ability. It’s not about the system, ultimately it’s always about the students.

The only disadvantages I could see would come from a management standpoint where there seems to be a lack of consistency and you can’t force your teachers into rigid systems to ensure they teach the way you want. Solution, find good teachers instead of hiring just anyone and then hoping the system somehow magically transforms them. Dogme is about the students using the language. It’s not about making people teach one way or another. That’s the point. Now, I personally think some things should be done by all teachers like eliciting or providing lots of opportunities to use language but that stems more from an adherence to CLT than dogme.
By Anita Kwiatkowska, February 22, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

Having read your last words and tired of being the only one opposing –
Do you think Dogme is more effective than CLT? Why?

Can wait until Thursday for the reply
By Karenne Sylvester, February 22, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

Hi Nick,

I’d put this in the depends category…

you see, the thing is I teach the students who had been wasting time in grammar based textbook driven lessons for millions of years (not that all textbooks are all bad it’s just that they are so often far removed from students’ lives – not all, some aren’t) but na ja, the point is that phrases like object and subject are terms they’re already familiar with – in fact, if you like, mentioning them gives them a feeling of security, something to relate back to based on those years of drilling.

That’s also an important factor when a teacher goes dogme, often by simply explaining that there is a method to the “madness” (when asked) the students relax, trust and then trust themselves. And building on, or forcing to emerge, that what is already learned.

But

“Passives are for when the the object is more important so we move the object to the front of the sentence.”

ain’t helpful to nobody.

And yes, above all else, the most essential step to learning “freely” or learning “dogme” is in the relationship to the self.

I’ve no idea if Thornbury agrees with me this – I’ve put it out there a couple of times and he hasn’t really addressed it (to me – he may have done in other writings) that while dogme focuses on emergent language in conversation driven contexts, IMHO, the conversation topics should be personalized and internalized by the learners.

On to Anita, you say:

I simply don’t think that Dogme is so great and the disadvantages stemming from applying it outweigh the advantages. That’s my point.

I understand your advantages and disadvantages being a nonNEST of English, but many of us teachers are nonNESTs of other languages, you know and I assure you that I learned zero Spanish in formalized classes. Or rather just left the classes feeling utterly despaired and certain I’d never grasp the language, ever. I learned Spanish instead from the people around me and am fluent – you could almost argue that it was this direct and real experience that sent me running from the use of textbooks because the systematic approach to what is not a systematic thing (language) was utterly confusing and demotivating to me as a learner!

Sorry you’re the only one opposing but also, Anita, why not try it for a week or two – just go into class and talk, see what happens, you’re experienced enough to deal with grammar issues as they arise, so that this shouldn’t be too threatening… and if you really hate it then at least you know that your objections are based on a real experience of having it not work rather than just an opinion that it can’t – .

Good luck and look forward to hearing about it!
By Karenne Sylvester, February 22, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

oh duh, NEST – native english (NNS/ NS) then… agrh why do we use these terms!
By turklis1, February 23, 2010 @ 7:58 am

That’s an excellent point Karenne. Like you said, most learners are already familiar with this terminology from their years of ineffective lessons:)
By Anita Kwiatkowska, February 23, 2010 @ 10:08 am

Karenne,
I still think that there is a difference between NESTs and nonNESTS. You would have a better understanding of what I mean if you learned, let’s say Spanish, and then became a teacher of that particular langauge. (No offence
I looked at English from the bottom as a student and now from the top as a teacher. You look at it from the top as it has been aquired as your first langauge and try to look at it from the bottom. We are both teachers but our perception of English is different. I hope you agree that there’s no point in discussing which one is better – I simply say we’re not the same.

Ok, I’m alone here and I do my best to make you get my point and get yours at the same time.

I have a feeling though that all of you reject everything that was created before Dogme. I quit learning Turkish because we were doing mostly grammar during classes and I hated that. My French teacher used methods similar to what you suggest and I hated it too.

Communiaction and fluency are the most important things in the classroom but eclecticism is the word for me.

If Dogme doesn’t work for me as a learner it means it won’t work for everyone. I simply don’t understand how you can assume it will?
And if you don’t, how can you, as a school manager, send people away instead of keeping them providing them with what they need?

My last point.
I do respect Scott Thornbury. Honestly.
He’s an authority. No doubt about that.
Why aren’t his Dogme ideas gaining worldwide popularity then?
Too revolutionary? Maybe.
I think many teachers during their teaching careers have tried out Dogmesque lessons before the theory was written down, and quit as it didn’t work in the long run for many reasons.

You have your point, I have mine. I didn’t manage to convinve you and you didn’t convince me either. Maybe a blog is not the best place to dicuss such issues.
By Peter Fenton, February 23, 2010 @ 10:39 am

Anita, I can’t speak for anyone else but I personally think Dogme IS CLT. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Dogme is just a stronger version of it. Many modern ELT textbooks claim to subscribe to the communicative approach but then when I look inside them, there’s very little that’s communicative about them. All I see is dry topics with banal texts that are completely remote from learners lives.

Also, I don’t think either Nick or Karenne (or anyone else for that matter) were suggesting that Dogme is for everyone. Sure some people aren’t going to like it and maybe Nick’s school will lose a few students because of it. I’d bet in the long run though, that his school will gain more students than they lose because of it.
By turklis1, February 23, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

I’d agree with you Peter. Dogme is simply the movement to make CLT actually CLT. I was thinking the same thing before but wasn’t sure if I should say it.
By Nicky, February 25, 2010 @ 11:36 am

Hi all, can I just throw in my 2 cents here?

First off, cheers to Nick, who clearly is into his job and would no doubt be a pretty cool boss to work for. I think his ideas for improving his own particular situation (managing a private language school in Turkey) seem entirely logical and appropriate–after all, he should know his situation, it being his, not ours.

But it’s his, uniquely his (well, and of the teachers that work with him). I really don’t think it should be such a controversial issue–different situations which involve different teachers and different students should quite logically warrant the use of…*gasp* different teaching techniques!

What’s good for the goose is not in fact always good for the gander! Now, before you paste a big “Grammar Reactionary” sign on my forehead, let me just say that
Dogme (for christ’s sake, couldn’t they have come up with a less lame monker for this? i feel mad corny just typing it) is in fact a great tool for generating language, practicing conversation skills, and speaking in general. Very learner-centered, very motivating. Very nice.

That however does not exclude the possibility that other methods may not have a good effect as well.

Before this turns into just another anti-Dogme rant (BTW I’m not anti-Dogme, that would be kind of dumb), let me get back to Nick’s original post here:

#1) Exams – I like them. Bring them on. Exams are awesome! I’ve had students–private students doing conversation classes–ask me, nay, beg me to give them exams (I gladly obliged). The chief argument for the use of exams is the value of the “backwash” (or is it “washback”? “Backwash” sounds kind of gross) effect–students realize there are discrete items that they don’t know and are then more likely to focus on getting right at a later date. Also, if you give a student an exam and they nail it, that can be a nice little confidence builder.

Mind you, in reality, I’m talking about little 15-20 min quizzes, not a 2 hour exam.

Also, not all students in all corners of the world are the supermotivated language-study machines that Dogme often makes them out to be. A little stick to go along with the carrot doesn’t hurt occasionally.

2) Coursebooks are a necessary evil in a lot of cases, and as such most teachers have to find ways around them–adapting, adopting, ditching. I’ve found that even the worst coursebooks have their share of salvageable gems, which can help to give the teacher a starting point for a lesson. Again, it depends on the students, the teacher, the situation, etc.

And, similar to my point about exams, some students feel much more comfortable using one than not. As in the example of one of my private students who said he preferred having a coursebook–simply because it was much tidier than the endless stacks of photocopies he’d received from previous teachers.

3) In general I agree, but like I said, depends on the situation, specifically that of the teacher. Meaning, how many different students or groups of students does the teacher have in a given week? If its a reasonable number, then by all means, an ever-changing, evolving syllabus is clearly a good thing. Does the teacher have 21 different students that he/she sees every week who are all different levels or are different ages or work in different fields? Then perhaps the teacher might consider reducing his or her workload and stress level–thereby increasing their effectiveness and capability in the classroom–by using some predetermined syllabus as a crutch. Crutches are useful sometimes!

Wow, what a rant. Ah, by the way, 4 and 5, I totally agree.
By turklis1, February 25, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

Hey Nicky, nice to see you back here

Exams can be used for two reasons 1) To assess students and therefore help determine the future direction of the course (I think many insitutions assess but never actually bother to use the results) and 2) For management to impose a system that makes teachers teach the material they want. Reason 1 is acceptable in my opinion, but it’s rarely done well and more trouble than it’s worth. As for the backwash, I don’t think it’s very positive. Most of the time teachers then teach to the exam and little is learned. You also have to spend a good chunk of time doing activities that ready students for the exam, rather than more useful communicative activities because learners always do worse if they aren’t used to the format. Think about teaching TOEFL or IELTS. 90% of those classes is teaching exam taking strategies, there is little English improvement. I’d also ask people to think about exams they’ve taken. Can you honestly say you think you learned a lot from an exam? Actually, did you ever even have an exam on upper level courses or were there always projects and papers instead? In my experience, it is almost always the latter. I wonder why?

As for students demanding exams. Well, some do, but concrete feedback is much better. Rather than give them an exam, sit down and talk with them about how they are doing. This can always be a confidence booster if done right whereas an exam can have very negative results. Of course class size becomes a big factor here and may be problematic.

My position is not that all course books are bad. They have their good points and activities, but they certainly should only be used as one tool among many. And some students do like course books. Well, give them one and they can use it on their own time or just pick and choose the good parts. If organization is a problem, get them to buy a binder and then hole punch all papers you give them. It’s more useful in my opinion.

I think both you and Anita have an important point that these approaches don’t fit all contexts. I think that, with good conditions, this is a good ideal to strive for though.
By Jason Renshaw, March 15, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

This is an awesome post, Nick, and a great discussion. I’ve linked over to it from a recent related post on my own blog, as I see some strong connections here!

Keep up the great work,

~ Jason
By Teresa Bestwick, March 16, 2010 @ 11:44 am

A great post and fascinating to read people’s comments.
A quick question about exams…do you prepare your students for Cambridge, IELTS and other such exams? I agree with your comment that a lot of time is spent working on exam technique rather than communication, but many students need that piece of paper as it ticks one of the boxes which a future employer has. Unforunately a rather cynical image, but fairly realistic in my opinion.
By turklis1, March 17, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

Hi Teresa, yes we do do exam courses as well, but those are set up differently. Exam courses are more about teaching the exam and related strategies and often very specific types of language, so course books are followed for them. Not strictly because books can get a bit tedious and demotivating but I’d say an average of 50% of the time a book is used for exam courses. Thanks for the question
By Alan Tait, April 16, 2010 @ 12:18 am

To Nick and all – a fascinating thread.

A quick one: Do you find that this approach makes it easier or harder for the students (privately) and the teacher (administratively) to keep track of what gets done in class?

I am able to do a lot of dogme-ish teaching with my adult classes, but I find it harder to keep track.
By turklis1, April 16, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

I’ve sent you a more thorough email, but it doesn’t take much to keep track of what’s happening as long as both students and teachers have a notebook where they keep notes about what’s happened. Binders for each individual also help a lot for those loose sheafs of paper that get handed out as well.