The Dogme Approach: A Radical Perspective in Second Language Teaching in the Post-Methods Era

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

This paper aims to make a critical discussion of Dogme ELT, an innovative pedagogy in English language teaching first developed by Thornbury (2000). This paper first provides a comprehensive review of second language acquisition and pedagogical theories as well as post-methods era perspectives in English language teaching. After that, the authors discuss different aspects of Dogme ELT and figure out the room for Dogme ELT in English language teaching in the post-methods era. Dogme ELT is rooted in a conglomerate of compatible theories in second language learning and teaching. The most noticeable perspective may be that the language teachers should not rely mainly on prescribed coursebooks, but teach design tasks based on learners’ problems and interests. There should be more studies on various aspects of Dogme ELT, although it satisfies most, if not all, basic principles in English language teaching theoretically. The authors also figure out gaps in research and recommendations for English language teachers and learners.

Авторлар туралы

Nhat Nguyen

Ho Chi Minh City University of Education

Email: nhatquang.ed@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9149-5066

Hung Bui Phu

University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City

Email: buiphuhung@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3468-4837

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Açıkalın, M. (2009). Pre-service elementary teachers' beliefs about the use of the Internet in the social studies classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 305-320. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760802553030
  2. Allwright, R. L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal, 36(1), 5-18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/36.1.5
  3. Almusharraf, N. (2018). English as a foreign language learner autonomy in vocabulary development: Variation in student autonomy levels and teacher support. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 11(2), 159-177. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-09-2018-0022
  4. Barnes, B. D., & Lock, G. (2013). Student perceptions of effective foreign language teachers: A quantitative investigation from a Korean university. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), 19-36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n2.2
  5. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Penguin.
  6. Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and post-method: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 325-336. ttp://. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/3588507
  7. Benati, A., & Rastelli, S. (2018). The teaching and acquisition interface in neurocognition research. Second Language Research, 34(1), 3-17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317732616
  8. Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language learning - a neglected situation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 135-158. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005337
  9. Brown, A. V. (2009). Students' and teachers' perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827
  10. Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  11. Bui, G., & Huang, Z. (2018). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, measurement, and pedagogy, 22(1), 94-114. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816656650
  12. Burgos, E. G. (2017). Use of the genre-based approach to teach expository essays to English pedagogy students. HOW, 24(2), 241-259. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19183/how.24.2.330
  13. Cangelosi, A. (2007). The emergence of language: neural and adaptive agent models. Connection Science, 17(3), 185-190. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09540090500177471
  14. Chapelle, C. A. (2019). Technology-mediated language learning. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati, The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 575-596). Cambridge University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.025
  15. Chappell, P. (2014). Engaging learners: conversation - or dialogic driven pedagogy? ELT Journal, 68(1), 1-11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct040
  16. Christie, C. (2016). Speaking spontaneously in the modern foreign languages classroom: Tools for supporting successful target language conversation. The Language Learning Journal, 44(1), 74-89. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.836751
  17. Coşkun, A. (2017). Dogme: What do teachers and students think? International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 6(2), 33-44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1445
  18. Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 232-249. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00716.x
  19. Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. In Studies in Bilingualism (pp. 3-31). John Benjamins.
  20. Ellis, R. (2014). Taking the critics to tasks: The case for task-based teaching. Proceedings of CLaSIC (pp. 103-117). NUS.
  21. Fasso, W., Knight, B. A., & Knight, C. (2014). Development of individual agency within a collaborative, creative learning community. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (3rd ed., pp. 7519-7528). IGI Global Press.
  22. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2013). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x
  23. Forbes, K. (2019). The role of individual differences in the development and transfer of writing strategies between foreign and first language classrooms. Research Papers in Education, 34(4), 445-464. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.1452963
  24. Gao, J. (2007). Teaching writing in Chinese universities: Finding an eclectic approach. Asian EFL Journal, 20, 285-297.
  25. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind. Basic Books.
  26. Greenhalgh, K. (2016). Eliminating unnecessary workload around planning and teaching resources. Outwood Grange Academies Trust.
  27. Hao, S., & Johnson, R. L. (2013). Teachers' classroom assessment practices and fourth-graders' reading literacy achievements: An international study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 53-63. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.010
  28. Harmer, J. (2012). Essential teacher knowledge. Pearson.
  29. Harmer, J. (2015). How to teach English. Pearson Education.
  30. Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson Education.
  31. Hartman, R. J., Townsend, M. B., & Jackson, M. (2019). Educators' perceptions of technology integration into the classroom: A descriptive case study. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 12(3), 236-249. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-03-2019-0044
  32. Harwood, N. (Ed.). (2010). English language teaching materials. Cambridge University Press.
  33. Horsley, M., Knight, B. A., & Huntly, H. (2010). The role of textbooks and other teaching and learning resources in higher education in Australia: Change and continuity in supporting learning. International Association for Research on Textbooks and Education (IARTEM) e-Journal, 3, 43-61.
  34. Ito, M. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with the new media. MIT Press.
  35. Knight, B. A. (2015). Teachers' use of textbooks in the digital age. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1-10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1015812
  36. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Just learning. Language Teaching, 50(3), 425-437. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000106
  37. Leutner, M. M.-J. (2019). Does modality play a role? Visual-verbal cognitive style and multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(6), 1-11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12381
  38. Li, D. (1998). It's Always More Difficult Than You Plan and Imagine: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/3588000
  39. Lin, W., & Yang, S. (2011). Exploring students' perceptions of integrating Wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88-103.
  40. Little, J. W. (2012). Professional community and professional development in the learning-centered school. In M. Kooy & K. van Veen (Eds.), Teaching-learning that matters: International perspectives (pp. 22-46). Routledge.
  41. Liu, J. (2004). Methods in the post-methods era Report on an international survey on language teaching methods. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 137-152.
  42. Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners' unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71-86. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.x
  43. Luke, M., & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language teaching. Delta Publishing.
  44. Macwhinney, B. (1998). The emergence of language. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 199-227. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.199
  45. McCabe, D. (2005). Dogme. ELT Journal, 59(4), 333-335. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci062
  46. McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. Psychological Review, 126(1), 1-51. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000126
  47. McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh University Press.
  48. McMeniman, M. (1992). Once more up the methodology road: A critical review of the communicative approach. Asian Studies Review, 15(3), 2-16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.1992.9755374
  49. McMullen, J., & Hickendorff, M. (2018). Latent variable mixture models in research on learning and individual differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 66, 1-3. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.008
  50. Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching Unplugged. Delta Publishing.
  51. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual Matters.
  52. Mitchell, C. B., & Vidal, K. E. (2001). Weighing the ways of the flow. Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 26-68. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00095
  53. O'Neil, R. (1982). Why use textbooks? ELT Journal, 36(2), 104-111. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/36.2.104
  54. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic Books.
  55. Panto, E., & Comas-Quinn, A. (2013). The challenge of open education. Journal of eLearning and Knowledge Society, 9(1), 1-12.
  56. Pawlak, M. (2019). How teachers deal with individual difference in the language classroom: Results of a study. Neofilog, 52(1), 179-195. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14746/n.2019.52.1.13
  57. Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Bielak, J. (2016). Investigating the nature of classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 654-671. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609615
  58. Postholm, M. B. (2018). Teachers' professional development in school: A review study. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1522781. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1522781
  59. Purpura, J. E. (2016). Second and foreign language assessment. Modern Language Journal, 100, 190-208. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12308
  60. Rassaei, E. (2018). Computer-mediated textual and audio glosses, perceptual style and L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 657-675. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817690183
  61. Ratner, N., & Bruner, J. S. (1978). Games, social exchange and the acquisition of language. Journal of Child Language, 5, 391-401. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002063
  62. Ren, W., & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT Journal, 70(4), 424-434. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw010
  63. Richards, J. C. (2000). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge University Press.
  64. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
  65. Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  66. Sayed, O. H. (2016). Teaching Unplugged: Does it have the Potential to Improve EFL Students' Speaking skills in a Writing Class? Journal of Research in Curriculum, Instruction and Educational Technology, 2(3), 93-125. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21608/jrciet.2016.24505
  67. Sener, S. (2014). Turkish ELT students' willingness to communicate in English. ELT Journal, 3(2), 91-109.
  68. Smith, R. (2008). Learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 62(4), 395-397. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn038
  69. Snoek, M., Swennen, A., & Van der Klink, M. (2011). The quality of teacher educators in the European policy debate: Actions and measures to improve the professionalism of teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 37(5), 651-664. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2011.616095
  70. Solimani, E., Ameri-Golestan, A., & Lotfi, A. (2019). Flipped vs unplugged instructions: Sailing EFL learners' oral proficiency through virtual and real learning communities. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 459-480.
  71. Srinivasan, R. (2019). Towards an understanding of the work of teacher education professoriate in India. Higher Education for the Future, 6(1), 101-114. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631118802732
  72. Stevick, E. (1981). Teaching languages: A way and ways. NewBury House.
  73. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are and should be ongoing. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
  74. Tan, K. E., & Phairot, E. (2015). Willingness to communicate among Thai EFL students: Does English proficiency matter? The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 15(3), 590-602. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.3.2.590
  75. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.
  76. Thornbury, S. (2000). A dogma for EFL. IATEFL Issues, 153(2).
  77. Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach grammar. Pearson Education.
  78. Thornbury, S. (2009). Dogme: Nothing if not critical.https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/dogme-nothing-if-not-critical.
  79. Thornbury, S., & Meddings, L. (2001). Using the raw materials. A Dogme approach to teaching language. Modern English Teacher, 10(4), 40-43.
  80. Thornburry, S., & Meddings, L. (2009). Dogme: A nest of NESTS? IATEFL Global Issues SIG Newsletter (pp. 15-19).http://gisig.iatefl.org/resources/newsletters/15/GISIGNewsletter15.pdf.
  81. Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional. McGraw-Hill Education.
  82. Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2003). Developing Materials for Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
  83. Tosun, Ö. Ö., & Cinkara, E. (2019). Coursebook dependency in secondary and tertiary-level EFL teachers. HOW Journal, 26(1), 81-105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19183/how.26.1.445
  84. Ur, P. (2012). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge University Press.
  85. Vallori, A. B. (2014). Meaningful learning in practice. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(4), 199-209. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v3n4a18
  86. Van Boxtel, C. A., Van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 311-330.http://doi.org/10.1016S0959-4752(00)00002-5.
  87. Van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: Students' uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206-239. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
  88. VanPatten, B. (n.d.). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00203
  89. Volet, S., Jones, C., & Vaurus, M. (2019). Attitude-, group- and activity-related differences in the quality of pre-service teacher students' engagement in collaborative science learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 73, 79-91. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.05.002
  90. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society - the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  91. Walqui, A.d., & Lier, L. v. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd.
  92. Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: A zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 671-684. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901958
  93. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instruction explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 4964. /. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420
  94. Xerri, D. (2012). Experimenting with Dogme in a Mainstream ESL Context. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 59-65. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p59
  95. You, X. (n.d.). New directions in the EFL writing: a report from China. Journal of Second, 13, 253-256. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.09.002

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу


Creative Commons License
Бұл мақала лицензия бойынша қолжетімді Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.