Dogme language teaching: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:51, 26 April 2021

Revision as of 16:16, 26 April 2021

Line 26:

===Materials light approach===

The Dogme approach considers that student-produced material is preferable to published materials and textbooks, to the extent of inviting teachers to take a 'vow of chastity' and not use textbooks.<ref name="Thornbury2005" /> Dogme teaching has therefore been criticized as not offering teachers the opportunity to use a complete range of materials and resources.<ref name="Gill2000">{{cite web |url=http://www.thornburyscott.com/tu/gill.htm |title=Against dogma: a plea for moderation |access-date=2009-12-14 |last=Gill |first=S |year=2000 |publisher=IATEFL Issues, 154 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090412035054/http://www.thornburyscott.com/tu/gill.htm |archive-date=2009-04-12 }}</ref> However, there is a debate toover the extent thatto which Dogme is actually anti-textbook or anti-technology. Meddings and Thornbury focus thetheir critique of textbooks on their tendency to focus on grammar more than on communicative competency and also on the cultural biases often found in textbooks, especially those aimed at global markets.<ref>{{Harvnb|Meddings|Thornbury|2009|p=13}}</ref> Indeed, Dogme can be seen as a pedagogy that is able to address the lack of availability or affordability of materials in many parts of the world.<ref name="Templer2004">{{cite web |url= http://www.hltmag.co.uk/sept04/mart3.htm#10 |title=Reflective Teaching in the Low-Resource Classroom |access-date=2009-06-23 |last=Templer |first=B |year=2004 |publisher=Humanising Language Teaching, 6, 3 }}</ref> Proponents of a Dogme approach argue that they are not so much anti-materials, as pro-learner, and thus align themselves with other forms of learner-centered instruction and critical pedagogy.<ref name="Thornbury2009Critical" />

===Emergent language===