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.

Keep up the great work,

~ Jason

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.

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.