I

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

ÇAĞ UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

AN INVESTIGATION INTO DOGME ELT: PRACTICES, TEACHER

ATTITUDES, AND CONSTRAINTS

THESIS BY

Ayşe Dilay EROĞLU

Supervisor : Prof. Dr. Jülide İNÖZÜ (Çukurova University)

Member of Jury : Dr. Aysun DAĞTAŞ

Member of Jury : Dr. Senem ZAİMOĞLU

MASTER OF ARTS

MERSİN / JUNE 2019

II

APPROVAL

III

DEDICATION

To my family

IV

ETHICS DECLARATION

Stu

den

t’s

Name& Surname: Ayşe Dilay EROĞLU

Number: 20178028

Department: English Language Education

Program: Master Thesis(X) Ph.D. Thesis( )

Thesis Title: An Investigation into Dogme ELT: Practices, Teacher Attitudes, and

Constraints

I hereby declare that;

I prepared this master thesis in accordance with Çağ University Institute of

Social Sciences Thesis Writing Directive,

I prepared this thesis within the framework of academic and ethics rules,

I presented all information, documents, evaluations and findings in accordance

with scientific ethical and moral principles,

I cited all sources to which I made reference in my thesis,

The work of art in this thesis is original,

I hereby acknowledge all possible loss of rights in case of a contrary

circumstance. (in case of any circumstance contradicting with my declaration)

12/06/2019

Ayşe Dilay EROĞLU

V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratefulness to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Julide İNÖZÜ

for believing in me in the first place, her patience, continuous support, invaluable

guidance and positive feedbacks throughout my study; without her assistance, I

wouldn’t be able to experiment the pleasure of working on this study. She hasn’t only

guided me on the way to successful academic research, but also helped me to acquire a

new perspective in my academic life.

I want to express my special thanks to the jury member Dr. Aysun DAĞTAŞ for

her valuable comments and contributions to my thesis.

I would like to express my gratitude to the jury member, Dr. Senem

ZAİMOĞLU, for her constructive criticism for my thesis.

I want to express my special thanks to my teachers Prof. Dr. Şehnaz

ŞAHINKARAKAŞ and Assist Prof. Dr. Seden TUYAN, for their advice and support

through my academic development.

I would like to present my special thanks to Görkem YILMAZ for always being

supportive of my studies and motivating me.

I also present my special thanks to my dear friends Elif PEKER, Nart KOÇ,

Gülcan YOLDAŞ, Abdulkadir ABDULRAHIM, Kelsey WILKENS, for their

continuous support and giving me strength.

Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to Ayşe Nil SAMSA for cheering me during

my stressful time, my brother Fırat EROĞLU, my sister, Dicle SAMSA and my brother-

in-law Zafer SAMSA, my father Mehmet EROĞLU and my mother Aylin EROĞLU for

their unconditional love and support from the very beginning of my academic life.

12/06/2019

Ayşe Dilay Eroğlu

VI

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION INTO DOGME ELT: PRACTICES, TEACHER

ATTITUDES, AND CONSTRAINTS.

Ayşe Dilay EROĞLU

Master Thesis, Department of English Language Education

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Jülide İNÖZÜ

June 2019, 105 Pages

Dogme ELT has emerged as a revolutionary movement in English Language

Teaching by the inspiration of Dogme 95 filmmaking movement aiming to cleanse the

movies from artificial effects of Hollywood. Having been born as an analogy and

excelling the meant-to-be name, Teaching Unplugged, Dogme ELT has rooted in an

online discussion group and expanded to many teachers’ practices. However, Dogme

ELT has been the target of many critics with its nature of rejecting dependency on

teaching materials, technology, and form-focused methods. It was criticized by being

unprofessional, and the principles were claimed to be controversial for different

contexts.

Given that the lack of research on Dogme ELT and its applications in different

contexts, there is a need for researching into the approach in order to gain better insights

into the principles and practices of it. In this belief, this study aimed to investigate

Dogme ELT in a Dogme supportive school of Turkey at the primary and middle levels.

As the first study conducted in a school where the teachers were encouraged to use

Dogme teaching, the study hoped to describe the practices of the teachers, their attitudes

towards Dogme ELT and its key tenets, and the constraints that they might face in

implementing it. Seven native speakers and 13 Turkish teachers participated in this

qualitative study, and the differences between their attitudes were also examined. The

questionnaires and interviews were used as data collection tools, and in the

questionnaires, the qualitative data were coupled with quantitative information. Thus,

qualitative data were subject to the content analysis while the quantitative information

analyzed by means of descriptive statistical analysis.

VII

The results of the study show that the teachers mostly adhere to the principles of

Dogme ELT in their practices; however, there is still a lack of information regarding the

theoretical underpinnings of the approach. Overall, despite holding similar practices and

positive attitudes, the Turkish participants drew a more knowledgeable profile regarding

Dogme teaching compared to their native colleagues. Furthermore, the analysis of the

data yielded the constraints against Dogme ELT; However, they appear controversial to

the application of any communicative approach in the context. These findings suggest

the educational context needs more research on Dogme ELT to bright forth awareness of

its applicability, practicality and possibility so that Dogme can be more widely practiced

in English-language classes.

Keywords: Unplugged Teaching, Dogme, Materials-light, Conversation-driven,

Emergent-language, Attitudes.

VIII

ÖZET

DOGME ELT ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME: UYGULAMALAR, ÖĞRETMEN

TUTUMLARI VE KISITLAMALAR

Ayşe Dilay EROĞLU

Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Anabilim Dali

Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. Jülide İNÖZÜ

Haziran 2019, 105 Sayfa

Dogme ELT, filmleri Hollywood'un yapay etkilerinden arındırmayı amaçlayan

Dogme 95 sinema hareketinin ilhamıyla İngiliz Dili Eğitiminde devrimci bir hareket

olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Bir benzetme ve onun ilk düşünülen Unplugged Teaching adını

geçerek doğan Dogme ELT bir çevrimiçi tartışma grubunda yeşerdi ve birçok

öğretmenin uygulamalarına yayıldı. Ancak, Dogme ELT öğretim materyallerine,

teknolojiye ve form odaklı yöntemlere olan bağımlılığı reddetme doğası ile birçok

eleştirinin hedefi olmuştur. Profesyonel olmamakla eleştirildi ve ilkelerin farklı

bağlamlar için tartışmalı olduğu iddia edildi.

Dogme ELT ve farklı bağlamlardaki uygulamaları konusunda araştırmaların

yetersizliği göz önüne alındığında, ilkeleri ve uygulamalarına daha iyi bir bakış açısı

kazandırmak için yaklaşımın araştırılmasına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu inançta, bu

çalışma, Türkiye'nin bir Dogme yaklaşımı destekleyen okulunda Dogme ELT'yi ilkokul

ve ortaokul seviyelerinde araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Öğretmenlerin Dogme öğretimini

kullanmaya teşvik edildiği bir okulda yapılan ilk çalışma olarak, öğretmenlerin

uygulamalarını, Dogme ELT ve temel ilkelerine yönelik tutumlarını ve uygulamada

karşılaşabilecekleri kısıtlamaları tanımlamak umut edildi. Bu nitel çalışmaya 7 anadili

İngilizce olan ve 13 anadili Türkçe olan İngilizce öğretmenleri katılmış ve tutumları

arasındaki farklılıklar da incelenmiştir. Anketler ve görüşmeler veri toplama aracı olarak

kullanılmış ve anketlerde nitel veriler nicel bilgilerle birleştirilmiştir. Böylece nitel

veriler içerik analizine tabi tutulurken, nicel bilgiler betimsel istatistiksel analizlerle elde

edilmiştir.

Çalışmanın sonuçları öğretmenlerin uygulamalarında Dogme ELT ilkelerine

uyduğunu göstermektedir; ancak, yaklaşımın teorik temelleri ile ilgili hala yanlış

IX

anlamalar ve bilgi eksikliği vardır. Genel olarak, benzer uygulamalara ve olumlu

tutumlara rağmen, Türk katılımcılar Dogme öğretimi konusunda anadili İngilizce olan

meslektaşlarına kıyasla daha bilgili bir profil çizdiler. Ayrıca, verilerin analizi, Dogme

ELT’ye yönelik kısımların sadece Dogme ELT değil herhangi bir iletişimler yaklaşımın

uygulanmasına karşı görülebileceğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu bulgular, iletişimsel bir dil

gibi dil öğretiminin daha iyi bir yolunu bulmak için, profesyonellerin kısıtlamaları

yeniden gözden geçirmesi gerektiğini ve Dogme ELT'in uyarlanabilir doğası ile

yardımcı olabileceklerini önermektedir. Bu nedenle, eğitim bağlamı Dogme ELT ve

uygulaması hakkında daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç duymakta, böylece öğretmenler

daha fazla bilgi sahibi olabilir ve Dogme İngilizce dil derslerinde daha yaygın şekilde

uygulanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Dogme Eğitimi, Iletişim Odaklı Eğitim, Ortaya Çıkan Dil Odaklı

Eğitim, Materyal Hafifletilmiş Eğitim, Öğretmen Tutumları.

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

COVER ............................................................................................................................. I

APPROVAL .................................................................................................................... II

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... III

ETHICS DECLARATION ........................................................................................... IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... V

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... VI

ÖZET .......................................................................................................................... VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... X

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... XIII

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... XIV

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... XV

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................ XVI

CHAPTER I

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study ........................................................................................ 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 2

1.3. The Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 3

1.4. Research Questions ................................................................................................ 3

1.5. Operational Definitions .......................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER II

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5

2.2. Dogme English Language Teaching (ELT) ............................................................ 5

2.3. Proponents of Dogme ............................................................................................ 9

2.3.1. Conversation-Driven .................................................................................... 9

2.3.2. Materials-Light .......................................................................................... 11

2.3.3. Focusing on Emergent Language ............................................................... 12

XI

2.4. Theoretical foundations of Dogme ELT .............................................................. 13

2.4.1. Developments in Language Learning ........................................................ 14

2.4.2. Current Language learning perspectives .................................................... 18

2.4.2.1. A new chapter for ELT: Post Methodology era ............................. 18

2.4.2.2. Communicative Language Teaching ............................................. 21

2.4.2.3. Task-Based Language Teaching .................................................... 22

2.4.2.4. Ecological Perspective and AAA Curriculum .............................. 23

2.5. Criticism of Dogme ELT ..................................................................................... 26

2.6. Applications of Dogme ELT ................................................................................ 30

2.7. Dogme ELT in Turkey ......................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER III

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 37

3.2. Research Design .................................................................................................. 37

3.3. Context of the study ............................................................................................. 37

3.4. Participants of the Study ...................................................................................... 38

3.5. Instruments ........................................................................................................... 38

3.6. Piloting the instrument ......................................................................................... 40

3.7. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 40

3.8. Trustworthiness .................................................................................................... 41

3.9. Ethical issues ........................................................................................................ 41

CHAPTER IV

4. FINDINGS

4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 42

4.2. The Results of the Questionnaires ....................................................................... 42

4.2.1. The Teachers’ Practices and Views of Language Teaching ....................... 42

4.2.2. Teachers’ Knowledge of Dogme as an Approach in ELT and Attitudes

Towards Dogme ELT and Its Key Tenets .................................................. 52

4.3. The Results of the Interview ................................................................................ 56

4.3.1. The Teachers’ Practices and Views on Ideal English Language Teaching . 56

XII

4.3.2. The teachers’ ideas on the Materials Used in this Institution .................... 58

4.3.3. Teachers’ Knowledge of Dogme as an Approach in ELT and Attitudes

Towards Dogme ELT and Its Key Tenets .................................................. 58

4.3.4. The Constraints and Suggestions ............................................................... 60

4.3.4.1. The Constraints against the preferred teaching styles ................... 60

4.3.4.2. The Constraints for Implementing Elements of Dogme ELT in

Turkey ........................................................................................... 61

4.3.4.3. Suggestions ................................................................................... 61

4.4. Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER V

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 66

5.1.1. The extent that the teachers apply elements of Dogme ELT. ..................... 66

5.1.2. The Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Dogme ELT and Its Key Tenets. ........... 68

5.1.3. The constraints that the teachers face against the applications of Dogme

ELT. ............................................................................................................ 69

5.1.4. The differences between the native and non-native teachers regarding

their attitudes towards Dogme ELT. .......................................................... 70

5.2. Implications of the study ...................................................................................... 71

5.3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research ............................. 72

6. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 73

7. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 79

8. CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................... 89

XIII

ABBREVIATIONS

AAA : Awareness Autonomy Authenticity

CLL : Communicative Language Learning

CLT : Communicative Language Teaching

EFL : English as a Foreign Language

ELT : English Language Teaching

IATEFL : Internat onal Assoc at on of Teachers of Engl sh as a Fore gn Language

ICT : Information and Communication Technology

TBLT : Task-Based Language Teaching

TEPAV : Turkish Economic Policies Research Foundation

TPR : Total Physical Response

N1 : Native (speaker) Teacher

NT1 : Native Teacher 1 (for interview participants)

T1 : Turkish (speaker) Teacher

TT1 : Turkish Teacher 1 (for interview participants)

XIV

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. The Teachers’ Experience of Teaching Without Material .............................. 43

Table 2. Which Lesson Would You Teach Without a Coursebook? ............................. 43

Table 3. Why the Teachers Sometimes Do Not Use Materials or Coursebooks? ........ 44

Table 4. The Importance of a Coursebook for Teaching English Effectively .............. 45

Table 5. The Teachers’ Feelings About Teaching Without Materials. .......................... 46

Table 6. The Teachers’ Use of Coursebook on a Weekly Basis. .................................. 46

Table 7. Do You Find the Use of a Coursebook Restrictive in Class? ......................... 47

Table 8. The Activities That the Teachers Would Benefit from Material-Light

Teaching. ........................................................................................................ 48

Table 9. Influence of Materials on the Teachers’ Practice of Teaching ........................ 48

Table 10. The Requirement of Materials for Language Exposure ................................. 49

Table 11. How do the Teachers Encourage a Communicative Environment? ............... 50

Table 12. The Practices of Teachers in Accordance with Dogme ELT .......................... 51

Table 13. Do you consciously follow Dogme ELT? ...................................................... 53

Table 14. The Participants’ Familiarities in Terms of the Tenets of Dogme ELT .......... 54

XV

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Dogme in relation to TBLT and Content-based instruction. ......................... 23

Figure 2. Interaction in Dogme teaching (Rebuffet-Broadus & Wright, 2014, p. 7) ..... 31

XVI

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

Appendix 1: Ethics Committee Approval ...................................................................... 79

Appendix 2: Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 81

Appendix 3: List of Questions for Semi Structured Interview ...................................... 85

Appendix 4: Consent-Form ........................................................................................... 86

Appendix 5: Permission to Conduct the Questionnaires ............................................... 87

Appendix 6: Request Letter for Permission ................................................................... 88

1

CHAPTER I

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study

In 1995, a group of Danish film-makers started a movement called Dogme 95 in

order to cleanse cinema of obsessive concern for technique and overuse of technology.

Having inspired by this movement, Scott Thornbury published an analogy for IATEFL,

A Dogme for ELT, introducing his teaching philosophy, Teaching Unplugged, to English

Language Teaching (ELT) world and triggered a new movement in ELT. According to

Thornbury, “while EFL may seem to have little in common with Hollywood, it is

certainly true that EFL teaching has never been so copiously resourced” (2000, p. 2).

From this point of view, he criticized EFL classrooms of over-dependence on teaching

materials such as coursebooks, worksheets and technological aids which often neglect

real language usage and the relevant context by addressing the questions, “where is the

story? Where is the real communication? Where is the inner life of the student in all

his?” (2000, p. 2, italics in original).

While English Language Teaching has started experiencing the development of

the post-methodology era after a long-felt dissatisfaction with the concept of method,

many works, and original ideas are propounded. Some are to find “an alternative way of

designing effective teaching strategies (Clarke, 1994; Kumaravadivelu, 1994; Prabhu,

1990), some are to go beyond the limitations of the transmission model of teacher

education with a call to find alternative way of creating efficient teaching professionals

(Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Johnson, 2000; Woods, 1996) ” (Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p.

537) .

Along with these products of high awareness in language teaching, Thornbury’s

idea of Teaching Unplugged has gained popularity by its ‘rejecting any pre-prescript

teaching through methods or coursebooks’ nature in English Language Teaching (ELT).

This new perspective of language teaching has made a great impact on teachers’ way of

teaching via an online- Yahoo discussion group by free participation of teachers with

their comments on the applications and the possibility of Dogme teaching.

In this discussion group, by evolving from the first questions of Thornbury, the

key tenets of Dogme ELT: conversation driven, emergent language and materials light

has grown. These tenets aim to promote language teaching in an authentic, context-

2

sensitive way with free flow of participant-driven input, rather than to use artificial

materials or a prescription for teaching. Following by debates, critics and reflections,

Dogme ELT has been conceptualized via publication of the book, “Teaching

Unplugged” by Meddings & Thornbury (2009) and “has saved its proper place in the

history of language teaching with its unique principles and key tenets” (Siham, 2012, p.

38).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Along with its popularity, questions and critics towards Dogme ELT have also

arisen. Although the principles and philosophy of Dogme are welcomed among as

English Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, some of them crossed questions regarding its

particularity, practicality, and possibility, the three parameters suggested by

Kumaravadivelu as “a one way of conceptualizing a post method pedagogy”

(Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 544). Furthermore, the previous studies on Dogme ELT

(Sketchley, 2012; Akça 2012; Coşkun, 2016) stressed that there is a lack of research into

Dogme ELT to validate the approach, especially in practice in order to support its

practicality and possibility. This paucity has posed a need to research into Dogme,

Teaching Unplugged, in other words. Affected by this shortcoming, prime mover

originator, Thornbury heralded to release a book proposal, Researching Dogme,

intended to be a collaborative research project into Dogme ELT and its implementations

(Akca, 2012).

Dogme ELT (aka Teaching Unplugged) has generated a great

deal of discussion and debate over the last ten or more years: online (by

means of a very active discussion list and a recent proliferation of

blogs), at conferences (including a monographic conference in

Barcelona this year) and in print, as well as having inspired a handful of

MA dissertations and at least one resource book. Yet, little or no

classroom research into how Dogme is implemented, and its impact on

learners and other stakeholders, has appeared in print in all this time.

(Thornbury, 2011c)

3

Akca (2012) pointed out that the usefulness of academic research with its

outcomes and critics, “given the ongoing debate about Dogme ELT, it would be useful

to supplement the available anecdotal evidence and reflective accounts of teaching

unplugged with more rigorous academic research directed at the approach, its outcomes

and the issues raised by critics”. She purports the lack in research might be reasoned

from a limitation for researchers and teachers to find the appropriate context to

investigate Dogme ELT by stating, “it appears to be unlikely candidate for experiments

with teaching unplugged in Turkey." She suggests researching Dogme as a step to

understand its application and a switch into teaching unplugged.

1.3. The Purpose of the Study

The present study aims to fulfill the need of research in English Language

Teaching (ELT) and shed light into Dogme ELT and the implementation of its key tenets

in the context of Turkey. Thus, it was aimed to investigate to what extent teachers are

applying elements of Dogme ELT in a private school where Dogme is encouraged as a

way of language teaching. Also, to gain a better understanding of Dogme ELT and its

key tenets, teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme ELT were analyzed. As they have

different education and teacher training backgrounds, the diversity of the thoughts of

native speaker teachers and non-native speaker teachers was taken into consideration

and analyzed separately; this also brought a comparison aspect into the study. Lastly,

concerning the post-methodology era, it was aimed to describe the constraints that

teachers can confront regarding applications of Dogme in the context of Turkey.

1.4. Research Questions

1 To what extent are teachers applying elements of Dogme ELT?

2 What are teachers’ attitudes towards the key tenets, Materials light, Conversation

Driven, and Emergent language, of Dogme ELT?

3 What kind of constraints are there that the teachers experience while applying

Dogme?

4 What are the differences between native-speaker teachers and non-native

speaker teachers regarding their attitudes towards Dogme?

4

1.5. Operational Definitions

Dogme ELT: Dogme is a communicative approach to language teaching that

encourages teaching without published coursebooks and conversational communication.

The name of the approach is an analogy to Dogme 95, Danish film movement.

Teaching Unplugged: The name of Luke Meddings and Scott Thornbury’s book

(2009) and the meant-to-be name of Dogme ELT.

Conversation-driven: The first and core tenet of Dogme ELT which advocates

value on communication that promotes social interaction via real-life conversations.

Conversat on s the "fundamental and un versal form of language" and so s cons dered

to be "language at work" (Medd ngs & Thornbury, 2009).

Materials-light: The second tenet considers that in language teaching rather

than published materials, student-produced materials should be used. It rejects

dependency on the materials and empowers the teachers with an opportunity to use a

variety of activities in their preferred teaching.

Focusing on emergent language: learning is learner initiated and language

emerges in second language learning situations via engagement of learners with each

other by talking and by being responded by others and scaffolded by teacher.

5

CHAPTER II

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

This chapter starts with the definition of metaphor Dogme and its principles

referring to the key tenets of Dogme ELT. Then, with the developments in English

Language Teaching, current English language learning perspectives will be introduced

to clarify the theoretical background of Dogme in language teaching pedagogy, later on,

we will look closer to Dogme ELT with its critics, applications and lastly how it works

in the specific context of Turkey.

2.2. Dogme English Language Teaching (ELT)

Recently, a new strong metaphor called ‘Dogme, “drawn by some teachers at

present and offers a shortcut to its set of principles and practices” (Hall, 2011, p. 55),

has been introduced to English Language Teaching (ELT). The metaphor originally

derived from a film making movement commenced in 1995 by a group of Danish film-

makers, including Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg. The film-makers asserted the

manifesto of Dogme and signed “a vow chastity,” a set of rules aiming to rescue cinema

from using artificial effects such as music, special lighting, superficial action and

announced it to be a collective of filmmakers open to everyone who wants to carry the

torch of the vow of chastity.

Having inspired by this movement, Thornbury states his inspiration, “my belief

that it is high time Dogme-type principles were applied to the classroom” (2000, p. 2).

In his 2000 IATEFL article, ‘A Dogme for EFL’, later described by Thornbury as

“uncharacteristically provocative” and “a rescue action in ELT” (2005), he criticized the

over-usage of materials such as coursebooks, worksheets, CDs, photocopies, visuals,

and over-dependence on them without thinking the real proponents of teaching.

Along with Meddings, Thornbury (2000) concluded from several real classroom

observations that the teachers tended depending exceeded use of teaching materials and

technology focusing on grammar rules and hi-jacked lessons with a lack of

communication, and how this ultimately turned to be an obsession: Obsessive Grammar

Syndrome (OGS). With this understanding, associating the comments of Dogme 95 with

6

EFL classrooms, Thornbury came up with similar Dogme ELT rules and he called out

teachers to sign a Vow of EFL chastity and wear the uniform of resurrection for ELT. To

illustrate the associations between Dogme ELT (Thornbury, 2000) and Dogme 95 rules

(van Tier & Vinterberg, 1995):

Shooting must be done on location Props, and sets must not be brought in

(if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen

where the props are to be found.

Language learning should be done using the materials which only students and

teachers bring into the classroom, or a location should be chosen to find the

necessary materials or environment.

Banishing music unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.

This principle is being referred not to use any recorded listening material in

order to eliminate artificial materials. The source of all listening should be

students and teachers and signify real talk and communication.

Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden rule drives attention to

technological-free teaching.

A few chairs and a teacher are enough for endless ways of learning and teaching

where real language emerges by free participation.

Genre movies are not acceptable.

This particular principle can be associated with the post methodology era in

English Language Teaching (ELT). No prescript teaching or a need to one form of

teaching is acceptable in Dogme ELT since language learning cannot be generalized to

simple prescriptions for specific context and needs in a different part of the world.

Following the Thornbury’s article, Dogme rooted in a discussion group

(www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/dogme) with the participation of language teachers

from all over the world. Dogme has gained considerable attention thanks to the

teachers’ sharing the voice such as ‘well, that is what I have always done, but it is good

to know that I am not alone’ (Thornbury, 2013). In this group, the present teachers

contributed to shaping Dogme ELT with their personal experiences in various contexts,

in the boundaries of the educational environments and their ideas to teach a language

most appropriately and beneficially way.

7

Furthermore, these trials of Dogme, comments and critics on it led to construct

the principles of Dogme ELT. This is why Dogme can be viewed as an emergent

approach, as a theory of practices of the teachers. The principles were listed in a

summarized way in Thornbury’s 2005 article, ‘Dogme: Dancing in the dark?’. Dogme’s

ten principles emerged by what “dogmetists” had in common are:

1. Interactivity: the real way of learning is not through materials, but the interaction

between teachers and learners and amongst the learners.

2. Engagement: the content must be engaging in an authentic and meaningful way

and brought in by the learners themselves.

3. Dialogic: learning should be social and dialogical through a co-constructed way,

not transmitted from outside of the context.

4. Scaffolded: talking is a vital tool for learning especially when it is shaped and

supported by the teacher.

5. Emergence: language is not acquired, but it instead comes out naturally when

the essentials of learning provided.

6. Affordance: the teachers’ fundamental role is to facilitate learning via

affordances considering the features of the emergent language.

7. Voice: the learner’s voice represents beliefs, knowledge, concerns, and

experiences and concerning learner’s self-concept should be paid regard.

8. Empowers: clearing the classroom from a massive burden of materials and

giving the power of controlling the teaching and learning process to the teacher

and the learners of the classroom.

9. Relevance: materials (e.g., texts) should be related to the learners of the specific

context.

10. Critical use: the teachers and students should be careful and critical about using

published materials regarding their cultural and ideological biases.

The principles emphasize on students’ language needs and their interests for

material developing, emerging language, fostering conversation utilizing students’

interaction in the social environment of language classrooms where learners are

scaffolded by their teacher when needed, and where their errors are seen as learning

opportunities. Thus, as these principles beyond the traditional views of language

teaching and learning principles, many advantages of Dogme ELT have been advocated

8

to promote new developments in language teaching. In this line, Sharma (2014)

revealed in her study that Dogme could work very well in culturally diverse contexts

without imposing any extra financial burden on learners and it helps us to reconsider the

teachers’ and learners’ role regarding our approach, teaching, and coursebook tendency.

Similarly, Ghazal and Singh (2014) concluded that student-centered pedagogy of

Dogme approach that connects the whole learning experiences on what the learners

bring into the class and what relevant and real for them, rather than imported materials

considering the language naturally emerges in Dogme classrooms by meaningful

interaction via dialogical ways without prompts or pre-recorded listening CDs.

Taking to the next step, Thornbury and Meddings (one of the original members

of the discussion board) published a book titled Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English

Language Teaching (2009) and Dogme ELT has gained its deserved place in English

Language Teaching history. In the book, the principles served as bricks for building the

key tenets of Dogme ELT: Conversation-driven, Materials-light, Focusing on emergent

language. Also, Teaching Unplugged- Dogme ELT gained an award with British

Council ELT on UK awards for innovation.

Following Shaw (2010) congratulated the authors, he stated the irony of

awarding Dogme with innovation as Dogme ELT did not so much invent a new way of

teaching. According to him, most of the teachers share the experience of Dogme

moments when things develop spontaneously in the classroom and lessons are formed

around the learners’ needs and interests without following coursebooks. Thornbury

acknowledged at the very first that Teaching Unplugged emerged with the feedback

from professionals in the field of ELT by stating, "there is nothing original in Dogme"

(2005, p. 3). According to him, Dogme ELT articulated various teaching principles, the

teachers' synthesis of many theories, methods, and their beliefs of language teaching

that have been around for a very long time (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). In the same

vein, Hall (2011) indicated, “there are interesting parallels between Dogme in ELT and

several of the issues in post-methodology ELT; Dogme teaching holds a particular

perspective on classroom interaction, learning opportunities and the social character of

the language classroom” (p. 41). Thus, it appears that the principles of Dogme ELT are

not unknown in modern English Language Teaching (ELT). Indeed, they are in harmony

with many influential approaches and modern perspectives in the Post-methodology era.

We will discuss where Dogme fits in ELT and its pedagogical foundations in the next

part.

9

Before finishing up, a further point to be considered is making some distinction

between whether Dogme ELT is an approach, a method or a teaching philosophy to

refer it indeed. When we consider the first definitions by Edward Anthony, an approach

is "a set of assumptions dealing with the nature of language, learning, and teaching,"

and method is the "overall plan for a systematic presentation of language based on a

selected approach" (1963, pp. 63-64). So, where does Dogme sit?

As previously mentioned in this paper, Dogme ELT was born as a metaphor,

Thornbury admitted, "in our defence, Dogme ELT was never meant to be a movement

as such; it was simply an analogy, but, like Frankenstein's monster, it took on a life of its

own, including the daft name" (2010a, para. 3). According to Hall, "metaphors can

provide insights into a range of issues within ELT [...] as a metaphor, Dogme is both a

way of teaching and an overt attitude to teaching" (2011, pp. 39-40). In the previous

studies and the literature, Dogme ELT was defined as an approach that mainly concerns

learners' needs and motivates teaching language authentically and communicatively

without depending on any prescript material (Brown, 2001; Sketchley, 2012; Spiro,

2013). Thus, also bearing in mind Akca's definition, "Dogme may be defined as a

philosophy of teaching which is in no way prescriptive, but which is given coherence by

the three core principles" (2012, para. 3), Dogme ELT will be considered as an approach

and a philosophy in this present study.

2.3. Proponents of Dogme

2.3.1. Conversation-Driven

The core tenet of Dogme Philosophy, Conversation-driven (Thornbury, 2011a),

works holistically and lays the foundations for the following two tenets; Materials-light

and Focusing on Emergent Language as it emphasizes that the content of learning

should emerge from real language and materials, which are relevant and meaningful to

learners. Thornbury (2011a) defines a conversation as “all the talk, the dialogue, the

communication (both spoken and written) that is generated by the people in the room,

and that is shaped, scaffolded, supported and signposted by the teacher” (para. 3). With

this sense, Dogme ELT takes the conversation as the heart of language learning

considering that language should emerge through conversation between participants by

co-constructed knowledge of the language. Meddings & Thornbury (2009) proposed

five reasons why conversation should play a vital role in the language learning process:

10

1. Conversation is language at work.

2. Conversation is interactive, dialogic and communicative.

3. Conversation scaffolds learning.

4. Conversation is discourse.

5. Conversation promotes socialization. (p. 8)

Considering that the language comes out as a product of learning rather than the

process, it is often viewed that conversation to be experienced after all grammar rules

and vocabulary are given. However, in Dogme ELT conversation is at work as the

process of learning. In many cases as Meddings and Thornbury (2009) asserted that

conversation is omitted from practice by giving importance to grammar and vocabulary,

“it is less easily ‘testable’ than knowledge of grammar and vocabulary, and it is often

the case that what is not tested will not be taught” (p. 9). Thus, this tendency results in

limiting language teaching into grammar and vocabulary teaching to test language

proficiency, and eventually teaching only those aspects to meet the expectations for

tests, just like an egg and chicken situation.

Another point was drawn upon the content of a conversation highlighting that

rather than focusing on sentence uttering like tenses, discourse should be taken into

consideration to foster real language usage. Also, it was emphasized that the content

should be relevant and developed by learners spontaneously, “when learners are

communicating, communication should, first and foremost, be ‘about themselves’”

(Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 9). In Dogme ELT, the conversation is characterized

as interactive, dialogic and communicative aiming to help learners develop the capacity

to learn a language, communicative competence, the goal of learning the language.

Meddings and Thornbury (2009) pointed out the meaningfulness of communication by

making a distinction between interaction and communication, “interaction is, of course,

not the same as communication. Speakers can interact without necessarily registering

what their co-speakers are saying. Communication implies more than this: it assumes

the exchange and negotiation of meaningful messages” (p. 9).

Furthermore, a critical reflection of interaction in Dogme ELT was associated

with the Bruner’ scaffolding, which emphasizes that more knowledgeable others

provide support with an interactional framework for other learners to feel safe enough to

take risks and extend their competence. This illustrates that with scaffolding it is aimed

to create a social environment where every participant of community respects one

11

another and learn from more knowledgeable others as Meddings and Thornbury (2009)

stated, “the learning of any skill is co-constructed in the interaction between learner and

teacher, whether the teacher is a parent, peer, sibling or actual teacher” (p. 10). With this

belief, the Conversation-driven tenet gives importance to learners’ voices, validating

their identity in the community where equality is promoted, and social differences are

dimmed.

2.3.2. Materials-Light

Reputably the most debated tenet of Dogme ELT has been Materials-light,

standing against the avalanche of materials, with a modest, minimalist style of teaching

including “a few chairs, a blackboard, a teacher and some learners” (Thornbury, 2000,

p. 2). The philosophy of Dogme ELT by rejecting pre-determined teaching,

correspondingly coursebooks and worksheets, has gained attention along with many

critics around the world. It has been found intimidating for language teachers who are

accustomed to delivering structured lessons and some teachers may question their

capacity to teach efficiently and answer the emergent language (Akca, 2012). However,

Meddings and Thornbury (2009) acknowledged that they were not “anti-texts”, but they

rejected materials which did not accord with the principles of Dogme, “materials that

might just conform to these principles would be those that support the establishment of

a local discourse community, and which foster the joint construction of knowledge,

mainly through mediated talk” (2009, p. 12). Thus, the tenet of Dogme is misinterpreted

as its aim was “not actually to burn coursebooks, at least to banish them from the

classroom, along with any other materials and technological aids that teachers now take

for granted” (2009, p. 12). According to them, many materials are focused on the

consumption of “grammar McNuggets,” pre-selected grammar items like tenses which

are “irrespective of any perceived need, relevance, or utility” (p. 12) as in critical

pedagogy which has the belief of positivism that knowledge exists, teachers are the

transmitters of knowledge to the passive participants- learners.

In relation with critical pedagogy, Meddings and Thornbury (2009) also draw

attention to the consumerist nature of coursebooks which embodies particular forms of

ideology, culture, and knowledge such as Western, capitalist, and neo-colonialist which

might manipulate learners. Thus, local coursebooks were suggested rather than imported

ones if coursebook using was inevitable. It should be noted that Material-lights gives

12

priority to learners’ interests and needs, so it was principally suggested to use learners’

texts as teaching materials recognizing that inviting learners to prepare their materials

for the next lesson and letting them contribute as a part of the community would often

lead high motivation them. Nunan (1988) suggested that “İmportant in planning,

presenting, and evaluating outcomes will be joint consultation and negotiation between

teachers and learners” (p. 20). Also, Materials-light tenet empowers teachers by giving

them free space to develop their teaching since many ELT coursebooks are still focused

mainly on building structures that strict teachers’ practices and decisions. As Richards

(1998) concerned that if teachers depended mainly on textbooks, they might lose their

skills to think critically and work severally.

2.3.3. Focusing on Emergent Language

Aligning with the views that language learning is an emergent process, the third

tenet of Dogme ELT argues, “if learners are supplied with optimal conditions for

language use and are motivated to take advantage of these opportunities, their inherent

learning capacities will be activated, and language - rather than being acquired - will

emerge” (Meddings & Thonbury, 2009, p. 16). In light of the latest developments in

English Language Teaching, acknowledging the complexity of language classrooms,

Dogme views that language emerges in two ways. First of them is the interpersonal

activity which takes place in classroom conversation, mediated with scaffolding and

good vibes; Second is through the intrapersonal sense, in which learners produce

language that was not taught beforehand, engaging their interlanguage through

classroom processes (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009).

Focusing on Emergent Language collaborates with the Conversation-driven

tenet and displays the reason why conversation should be in the process of learning.

Meddings and Thornbury (2009) stated that moving away from the communicative

approach which deals with coding language and neglects the communicative

competence, which is “the goal of learning of a language” for them (p. 9), Dogme ELT

focuses on communication believing that “occurring talk is a sufficiently fertile context

for language development” (p. 17). Thus, a Dogme classroom is a working environment

in which learners can cultivate their language and in which teachers can monitor the

emergent language, encourage and scaffold learners as Meddings & Thonbury (2009)

pointed out that the emergent language in the conversation-driven classroom “must be

13

worked upon, it must be scrutinised, manipulated, personalised and practised” (p. 20).

Moreover, Teachers’ roles are not only encouraging and scaffolding learners but also

determining the learners’ needs and ultimately the aim of the next lesson. Thus, they

outlined the techniques for teachers to apply as their roles in the emergent classroom of

Dogme. The ten techniques are respectively: “reward, retrieve, repeat, recast, report,

recycle, record, research, reference, review” (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 20).

Another concern of the Focusing on emergent language tenet is the dependency

of teachers on curriculum strictly in order to cover all subjects. In Dogme philosophy,

the curriculum is supposed to be “uncovered,” to put it differently, the curriculum

should emerge according to the learners’ needs, it should be the process, “not as an

attempt to anticipate the learners’ communicative needs, but in response to them. That

is, it is a syllabus that is both usage-driven and responsive” (Meddings & Thornbury,

2009 p. 20). Also, although the process syllabus is influential on a theoretical basis, it is

not practiced systematically and deliberately due to the restrictive nature of the

coursebook (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). Hence, by rejecting the coursebook and

pre-selected grammar items, Dogme ELT takes learners’ needs as a core point to

determine the aim and content of teaching with a responsive sense, similar to a process

approach.

2.4 Theoretical foundations of Dogme ELT

As is known to all, English Language Teaching has gone through many changes

and paradigm shifts from early behaviourist approaches and structuralist methods and

grammar-translation method to humanistic and communicative approaches. Between

these swings, Dogme ELT embarked on another quest of finding the best way of

teaching and learning the language with its radical philosophy. Also, as previously

mentioned "the ideas presented in Teaching Unplugged “have been retrieved from the

collective wisdom of methodologists over the last 100 years [that] are still with us and

still worth hanging on to” (Thornbury, 2010b). Thus, it is essential to understand the

sharing characteristics of Dogme ELT with the other theories and approaches of ELT.

Now we will evaluate how the paradigm shifts have evolved till today; we will discuss

the current perspectives and where Dogme ELT sits in the language teaching pedagogy.

14

2.4.1. Developments in Language Learning

When we look at the earliest of ELT, we inevitable across the Grammar

Translation Method, which is also known as the Classical Method. The method

emphasizes accuracy strictly in the language learning process and has nothing to

facilitate communicative skills. The Grammar Translation method was widely criticized

mainly for neglecting fluency, cognitive abilities, and communicative skills of learners.

According to Brown (2001), the method required very little skill from the teachers and

the students have low motivation to gain communication skills due to the standardized

tests that measure their grammar skills rather than communication skills. Regardless of

the criticisms, as Thornbury (2010) highlighted the fact that a great deal of both native-

speakers and teachers who are speakers of languages other than English, use this

method as their daily practice of teaching, “they [teachers] do this because of common

sense practical reasons, but without necessarily compromising their adherence to a

communicative philosophy” (2010, para. 7).

Inspired from the first language acquisition steps, the Direct Method of Gouin

took place in the history of language teaching and gained its popularity thanks to Berlitz

in the 20th century. This ‘Naturalistic’ Method promotes a language learning with lots

of verbal interaction by teaching grammar inductively. Additionally, in the early stages

of learning, even textbooks were not allowed, and new vocabulary was to be taught by

demonstrations and mimes (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The downfall of the method

was the limited applicability in public schools as it required nativelike teachers, and not

all teachers were proficient enough to teach without textbooks (Richards & Rodgers,

2001). The method was declined due to the concern of its lack-structured feature

concerning language learning pedagogy (Brown, 2001). Later on, despite its popularity

in European private schools, the Direct method could not maintain the same popularity

in America, especially after World War II.

During World War II, Audiolingual Method also known as Army method was

formed in an intensive course by Fries (1945) to improve oral proficiency in a

structured way due to the concern of the U.S. Department of State for the teaching of

English. Evolving from the behaviorist approach, Audiolingual Method perceived

learning as habit formation, and in practice lots of drills took place, “Learning a

language was believed to involve making the basic patterns of arrangement of the

language - the grammatical forms - matters of habit” (Fries, 1945, p. 3). Despite its

15

structural and behaviorist characteristics Morley, Wallace, Selinker, and Woods (1984)

unveiled the unpublicized aspects of the Audiolingual method. According to them

(1984), Fries created "a total functional language environment" as a base to his language

learning theory which emphasized learning as a process, not something in the classroom

and should go beyond the classroom to use language in real-life communicative

situations. Selinker at al. (1984) mentioned that Fries drew attention to the need to relate

cultural values to the language in which they were being expressed in the textbooks, and

he did not use textbooks for application of this method owing to the personalized nature

of the program which included small classes where instructors cared about their

students, their needs and interests. Also, the classroom atmosphere was given

importance, and learning sometimes was taken to other places like the dining-room to

use language in a social setting. Instructors were able to use their styles, and many

grammatical and phonological examples were prepared by learners and teachers

together.

Interestingly, some sharing characteristics of Dogme’s core principles and Fries’

ideology of “a total functional language environment” can be traced as both have

emphasis on rejecting textbooks, teaching in a personalized way, promoting

conversation and considering classrooms’ social aspect. However, although Fries was

successful at his specialized teaching, the audiolingual method, in general, was seen as

an ultimate failure to teach long term communication proficiency with its philosophical

beliefs such as focusing on habit formation via language patterns and drills. As Richards

& Rodgers (2001) depicted that audiolingualism was attacked by both its theoretical

foundations and being unable to transfer skills acquired to communication, as also many

students found the experience of audiolingulism boring and unsatisfying.

A dissenting language teaching theory, Cognitive Code Learning, was declared

by linguists Noam Chomsky rejecting strict behavioristic practices of the Audiolingual

Method (ALM), Chomsky claimed that “language is not a habit structure. Ordinary

linguistic behavior characteristically involves innovation, the formation of new

sentences and patterns in accordance with rules of great abstractness and intricacy”

(1966, p. 153). In Nunan’s definition (1989), in cognitive code learning, learners are

aware of rules and link to new knowledge to prior knowledge, also making mistakes are

given importance regarding learning a new concept or rule (p. 234). Thus, it can be said

that Chomsky’s revolutionary approach emphasized utilizing the rules of language in

governed creativity of humans via the techniques of mimicry and memorization so that

16

learners can produce numbers of sentences with the articulation of rules and vocabulary.

Even so, the innovation lost its short-lived popularity, due to its restitution of some

mechanical practices like drills. Brown stated (1994), “Cognitive code learning

emphasized a conscious awareness of rules and their applications to second language

teaching [...] ironically, a return to some of the practices of Grammar Translation”, and

rejecting drills by all means, it was celebrated, “today, thankfully, we have developed

teaching practices that make only minimal—or optimal—use of such drilling” (Brown,

1994, p. 138, cited in Thornbury, 2009a).

In the 1970s, while hot debates over behaviorist and cognitivist approaches were

continuing, the alternative, “designer methods,” as Nunan called them (1989, p. 97),

emerged in the scene of English Language Teaching. Curran (1972) developed

Community Language learning (CLL), inspired by Carl Rogers’ education model,

focusing on the needs of the learners. CLL was student-centered but had a strict and

basic methodology. Gattegno (1963) created the Silent Way, which specifically based

on reading sounds which are coded by colors while the teacher is in silence. Even

though the initial aim of the Silent Way was in accordance with humanistic approaches,

the actual practice was found to be very strict and traditionalist (Nunan, 1989; Richards

& Rodgers, 2001). Another method is Lozanov’s Suggestopedia which gives great

importance to the conditions of learning focusing on music and relaxation. According to

Brown (1994), although designer methods were rigorous about using exclusively in a

curriculum, still CLL’s discovery learning, student-centered and student autonomy

principles are applicable; Suggestopedia gave the language teaching profession some

insights into the power of the human brain, and the underlying principles of the Silent

Way are still valid.

Lastly, influenced by another methodological tradition called the second

language acquisition, which “draws directly on research and theory into first and second

language acquisition and attempt to apply this theory and research to the second

language acquisition” (Nunan, p. 240). Asher (1977) designed Total Physical Response

(TPR) combining many analytical insights of first language acquisition and affective

barriers of the classroom to foster stress-free learning with lots of listening and

responding. Still, despite its effectiveness in beginner levels, TPR was seen limited in

advanced levels due to the need for using unrehearsed language and spontaneity

especially in writing and reading activities (Brown, 1994).

17

In second language acquisition tradition, remarkable attempts were made by

Krashen with his five hypotheses and combining Terrell’s (1977) philosophy of

language teaching “Natural Approach.” Joining forces, Krashen and Terrell published

their book The Natural Approach and purported the fundamental tenets of their

approach. To clarify, Natural Approach is merely similar to the old Natural Method, aka

Direct method regarding their understanding of first language acquisition as a base point

to second language acquisition. Krashen and Terrell (1983) made the difference with

focusing on language exposure, comprehension and the silent period based on

Krashen’s five hypotheses: The Acquisition / Learning Hypothesis, The Monitor

Hypothesis, The Natural Order Hypothesis, The Input Hypothesis, The Affective Filter

Hypothesis. Richards and Rodgers (2001) summarized the applications of these five

hypotheses:

1. As much comprehensible input as possible must be presented.

2. Whatever helps comprehension is important. Visual aids are useful as is

exposure to a wide range of vocabulary rather than study of syntactic

structure.

3. The focus in the classroom should be on listening and reading; speaking

should be allowed to “emerge.”

4. In order to lower the affective filter, student work should center on

meaningful communication rather than on form; input should be

interesting and so contribute to a relaxed classroom atmosphere. (p. 134)

Similar to the philosophy of Dogme ELT, Krashen depicted that language

emerges via comprehensible input, even though he neglects the importance of

interaction. “Speech cannot be taught directly but “emerges” on its own as a result of

building competence via comprehensible input.’ (Krashen, 1983, p. 2). Even though

Krashen’s ideas were criticized for its simplifying the nature of first language

acquisition, these ideas led practitioners to revisit their ideas on language teaching and

inspired to construct further theories. Meddings and Thornbury (2009c) suggested the

methodologies like Total Physical Response that focuses on providing learners with

comprehensible inputs and omits teaching of grammar were designed in respect to

Krashen’s ideas of comprehensible input and silent period. Thornbury stated:

18

As a teacher formed in the twilight phase of audiolingualism, I

found Krashen’s outright dismissal of the value of productive practice or

of error correction, and his case for bathing the learners in a sea of

comprehensible input, immediately attractive – all the more so because

of the feisty way in which these ideas were argued. (2009c, para. 4)

2.4.2 Current Language learning perspectives

On looking back over this meandering history of English Language Teaching

(ELT), we can see the hunt for the best method resulting to the shifts on Psychologists’,

linguistics’ and teachers’ understandings of how languages are learned, and their

criticisms towards pitfalls of the methods. Eventually, the developments created the

foundation for current language learning perspectives. Now we will look deep into the

new era for ELT and three important approaches with which Dogme ELT has sharing

characteristics.

2.4.2.1 A new chapter for ELT: Post Methodology era

Early roots of post-methodology were in discussion not just recently. River

propounded “principled eclecticism” (1981) in which the teachers organize their lessons

incorporating from various methods that can be used for that specific context and need.

Also, suggesting the differences between the production of academic knowledge and

teaching practice, the teachers gained importance as the real practitioners of the

methods, Pennycook (1989) stated, “the knowledge produced in the central academic

institutions is legitimated through a series of political relationships that privilege it over

other possible forms of knowledge” (pp. 589-590).

In 1990, Prabhu highlighted that the “wickedness” of learning was due to

extreme devotion to methods, not methods; and he offered the sense of plausibility, a

“subjective understanding of the teaching they do. Teachers need to operate with some

personal conceptualization of how their teaching leads to desired learning” (Prabhu,

1990, p. 172). Also, Nunan (1991) informed that there had been no method so far to

meet all requirements of language teaching as well as consider the dynamics of the

classroom, and probably there will probably never be either (p. 228). Later on, Brown

(1994) identified the concept of “enlightened, eclectic teacher” (p. 200) which takes

dynamics of the classroom as the heart of teaching and he believed in empowering

19

teachers to be selective for most relevant principles of learning and teaching for their

teaching practice and learners. Brown suggested, “your approach to language pedagogy

is not just a set of principles ‘set in stone’” (2001, p. 40).

The discussions over language learning changed directions to teacher and learner

empowerment and the classroom dynamics. Considering teachers as facilitators and

change agents, Kumaravadivelu (2003) suggested teachers their role as “transformative

intellectuals” and “reflective practitioners” instead of “passive technicians” (p. 16). The

emphasizes on teacher and learner autonomy by indicating that teaching practice is

restricted by the implementation of a set of teaching and learning strategies (i.e.,

method) developed by the theorist or syllabus and material designer out of the

classroom.

Insights from the arguments towards the notion of ‘Method’ have provided a

conducive environment for the declaration of “The Death of the Method” (Allwright,

1991) which was, as Kumaravadivelu pointed out, derived from the urgent necessity for

a change from method-based pedagogy to a post-method pedagogy. According to

Kumaravadivelu, “the language teaching profession appears to have exhausted the kind

of psychological, linguistic, and pedagogic underpinnings it has depended on for

constructing alternative methods” (2006, p. 161), and he proposed three parameters to

be a guide to conceptualize post method pedagogy: particularity, practicality, and

possibility (2001). Of all, the most indispensable parameter was particularity pedagogy,

described in Kumaravadivelu’s own words as “language pedagogy must be sensitive to

a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners pursuing a

particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in a particular

sociocultural milieu” (2001, p. 538). Secondly, practicality pedagogy refers to teacher

autonomy; in other words, theorizing their teaching practice, rather than the practice of

theory. Lastly, inspired by critical pedagogies, possibility pedagogy concerns the socio-

political consciousness and learners’ identity on education. Lastly, inspired from critical

pedagogy, possibility pedagogy concerns the socio-political consciousness and learners’

identity on education. Briefly:

Particularity: Concerned with the practices that teachers submit to in

their particular teaching context.

Practicality: Concerned with the empowerment of the teachers in their

particular teaching context.

20

Possibility: Concerned with the empowerment of the students in their

particular learning context. (Parry, 2012, p. 32, italics in original)

Along with three parameters, Kumaravadivelu developed ten macro-strategies

for teachers to construct their own theory of practice according to post-method

pedagogy. These strategies are systematically in relation and connected to one another:

Maximise learning opportunities

Facilitate negotiated interaction

Minimize perceptual mismatches

Activate intuitive heuristics

Foster language awareness

Contextualize linguistic input

Integrate language skills

Promote learner autonomy

Ensure social relevance

Raise cultural consciousness (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 39)

Post Methodology expects teachers to take a role on many issues such as

focusing on the needs of learners in particular context, creating learning opportunities

following the given micro-strategies, monitoring and evaluating learning, and also

keeping up with their professional development. However, with all these expectations,

the problem arises with its neglecting the reality that these can be very endeavoring for

teachers in various contexts especially where teachers work for long hours with less pay.

Akbari (2008) strongly argued that post-method as an idealistic idea and away from the

reality ignoring the practitioner’s lives, working conditions, and making impossible

demands from them without asking their opinions. Akbari stated, “the concept of

method has not been replaced by the concept of post-method but rather by an era of

textbook-defined practice” (p. 647) pointing out that textbooks which embodied a

method via its prescription of teaching started to serve to the teachers whose daily life

challenges govern them to adopt a practical option. In the same vein, Thornbury

indicated that “the concept of the method is not only alive and well but has been

21

reincarnated in the form of coursebooks” which focus on language rules not the aspects

of the use and restricts teachers as mediators (2009b, p. 3).

2.4.2.2. Communicative Language Teaching

With the realization that language learning is not solely about linguistic

competence and discourse, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) came to exist as

a result of inadequacies and dissatisfaction with the traditional structural methods such

as Grammar Translation and the Audio-lingual method (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). As a

consolidation approach that takes into consideration many components of language

learning such as learners and their needs, cultural context and the communication as the

real goal of language, CLT was such a sturdy shift within ELT (Brown, 2000).

In practice, CLT primarily aims to use language to communicate in real life

situations, prospering communicative and pragmatic competences. CLT

characteristically has been exported and applied by many teachers in different teaching

styles as Savignon suggested, “CLT as an umbrella term to think about the goals and

processes of classroom language learning” (2004, cited in Hall, 2011 p. 95). However,

its adaptability has also confused its practitioners because the original, also known as

the strong, version CLT aimed to use language to learn it. However, later it was

suggested due to the lack of linguistic forms, to integrate grammar teaching to CLT

(Thomspon, 1996). Eventually, this gave rise to the weak version of CLT which has

been dominating since then due to the economic concerns as the weak version is more

profitable due to marketable teaching materials include linguistic features (Allwright &

Hanks, 2009).

Like all other methods and approaches presented in this paper, Communicative

Language Teaching (CLT) was criticized since it lacks authentic conversation, returns to

a structural approach, and that is not being convenient for all cultures and contexts. For

instance, Thornbury (1998) summarized his observation of CLT in different contexts

including western Europe, Egypt, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand, as “from a

communicative perspective, CLT is not only weak but very weak” (p. 110).

Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, CLT offered alternatives for teachers, served for

communicative competence and led to ELT debates on post-methodology (Hall, 2011).

22

To get a closer look to its common grounds with Dogme, Meddings and

Thornbury indicated its emergent and scaffolded phenomenon as fundamental to both,

“it is an argument that is entirely consistent with a communicative approach - but not

necessarily the kind of quasi-communicative approach promoted by current

coursebooks, where a sentence-level grammar still predominates” (2009, p. 9). Thus, it

was doubted that Dogme could be a new life to CLT regarding its weak version focusing

on linguistic concerns through coursebook and its profitable feature which only can

benefit a certain population with high-income:

In such an educational climate, concepts so fundamental to CLT

as authenticity, fluency, discovery, and collaboration seem outmoded, or,

at best, ‘add-ons’ for those who can afford the luxury of small classes of

communicatively-motivated learners. Given the appeal that still attaches

to the word ‘communicative,’ though, CLT will probably continue to

prosper as a brand, even though its original ingredients may have long

since been reconstituted. (Thornbury, 2015, para. 5)

2.4.2.3. Task-Based Language Teaching

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) emerged in language teaching in the

umbrella of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), along with Content-based

Instruction (CBI) which is “an approach to second language teaching in which teaching

is organized around the content or information that students will acquire, rather than

around a linguistic or another type of syllabus” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 204).

Both teaching methods involve learners use language to learn the language itself, not

learn about the language (Lightbown & Spada, 2000). Task-Based Language Teaching

(TBLT) was developed by Prabhu in 1987, and it focuses on learning opportunities by

actively engaging and communicating students in order to solve a problem or complete

a meaningful task. Kumaravadivelu (2006) indicated that TBLT was not bound to any

method as it is "a curricular content rather than a methodological construct” (p. 65).

Additionally, Thornbury (2006, 2011b) suggested TBLT as a strong version of

Communicative Language Teaching, and that has common core principles with Dogme

regarding its method of using language to learn and mentioned, “in a task-based

approach, the teaching-learning cycle starts with a fluency activity, and the learner’s

23

production forms the raw material for subsequent language-focused work. A Dogme

approach shares many of the beliefs and features of a task-based approach” (Meddings

& Thornbury, 2009, p. 9). To illustrate Thornbury (2011b) developed a chart (see Figure

1).

Figure 1. Dogme in relation to TBLT and Content-based instruction. (Thornbury,

2011b)

However, Meddings and Thornbury (2009) also rejected the philosophy of Task-

Based Language Teaching (TBLT) by highlighting its limitations and raise the

questions, “how do you deal appropriately with language problems that emerge

spontaneously from the task performance? A grammar-based syllabus and a

presentation-practice-production (PPP) approach offer greater security to teachers with

these concerns” (p. 224). Similar concerns on TBLT regarding its inability to answer

language problems which emerge spontaneously during a task solving owing to its

procedural planning in PPP form and inadequacy of tasks to meet the whole pedagogy

were also mentioned by other scholars (Shekan, 1998; Seedhouse, 1999; V. Cook,

2008).

2.4.2.4. Ecological Perspective and AAA Curriculum

The history of language teaching has witnessed dramatic changes throughout

decades swinging from structuralize methods to communicative approaches, but in

general, the emphasis of concern was on input, output, and feedback, in other ways

language and the content. However, van Lier (1996) put forward teachers, learners and

the context with the Ecological Perspective, an insightful teaching philosophy that

recognizes the complexity of language teaching and learning. In Tudor’s definition, “an

24

ecological perspective involves exploring language teaching and learning within the

totality of the lives of the various participants involved, and not as one sub-part of their

lives which can be examined in isolation” (2003, p. 4). Drawing a parallel between

environmental contamination and the changing ideas of language learning and Swain

(2008) deduced “[…] the concept of the ecosystem has become all too familiar as we

worry about what we are doing to our environment and how to make changes that will

impact. Metaphorically, van Lier applies the concept to education and second language

learning” (p. 3).

Learning ecologically does not entail any generalizable ideological and political

serving learning, but embraces an emergent one through affordances, a process of

interaction, and only evaluated by quality regarding its particular context. In this sense,

van Lier (2002) purported four elements of Ecological learning which also can be seen

in common with Dogme ELT. The first element, Perception is essential as the first step

to learning something new and accelerating with receptivity and curiosity of learners; it

is a switch from exposure to engagement (van Lier, 1996). Additionally, ecological

learning requires perception to be two-way directional to affordances and semiotics. In

van Lier’ own words, “the perceived objects (or events) are not independent of the

perceiver; indeed, in ecological terms, they are seen as relationships between particular

attributes of the perceiver and particular attributes of the environment.” Hand in hand

with the first element, Activity refers to activity-based learning in which language

emerges from affordances in the environment to which the agent -learner- feel relevant,

not from the input. Regarding activity engagement, Van Lier (1996) highlighted the

flow of utterances, meaning that giving learners the freedom to pick up tasks or

linguistic formats and choose the difficulty level the way they need and want, also

teacher facilitate the access and ease learners to conversational aspects rather than

delivering the lesson in a structured way. From this point, the flow can be associated

with dogme moments of Dogme ELT (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009), which was also

emphasized as “moment of freedom” (p. 82) in which “a learner’s utterance offers a

learning opportunity, and the lesson takes a brief detour in pursuit of it” (p. 21).

This low-structural, learner-based learning is complemented with scaffolding, a

vital component to foster learning with the help of more knowledgeable others. Van Lier

(2004) argued, “scaffolding presupposes two key conditions: a) Scaffolding occurs

during novel, unpredictable moments in activities, when learners try out something new

and venture into uncharted waters; b) Scaffolding is aimed at handover (by the teacher

25

or peer) and takeover (by the learner) of control” (p. 93). The third element, Relation

takes learners’ inner world and identities into account implying that language learning

closely involves the negotiation of identities and creating a network in learners’ world.

Accordingly, the Ecological Perspective argues that learning involves social interaction,

“aligning one’s resources with situational demands and shaping the environment to

match the language resources one brings. … In sum, the acquisition is social practice”

(Canagarajah, 2007, p. 933). The last element, Quality, focuses on evaluating linguistic

activity within its particular context. Quality element put forwards that any

standardizing does not reflect equal quality, and it is not able to measure the quality of

education by test scores as they omit some significant indicators of educational quality

in quantitative analyses.

In light of these basic constructs, van Lier shows a road for teachers to develop

their own “theory of practice,” contributed to language learning with the AAA

curriculum (1996, p. 2). Just like Dogme ELT, the AAA curriculum does not present

itself as ‘method,’ ‘approach’ or ‘theory’ with its name in order to refrain from

restricting teachers’ practices with predetermined techniques. Van Lier stated, “rather

than speaking of a new theory, or a new approach or method, I will use the term

language education curriculum, defining curriculum in a holistic and process sense”

(1996, p. 3, italics in original). In terms of its three principles awareness, autonomy, and

authenticity (AAA, in short), AAA Curriculum has further similarities with Dogme ELT

regarding their holistic and process sense as both philosophies have ‘genuine triad’ (Van

Lier, 2006, p. 4) which are in relation to each other, working together and for one

another.

As the foremost tenet, Awareness emphasizes on noticing which is a process of

paying attention to the new knowledge, connecting it to previous knowledge and

experiences through conscious engagement and reflecting. Deliberate or spontaneously,

language awareness is highlighted as crucial to develop various aspects of language

teaching and learning (Van Lier, 1996). Autonomy in ecological learning is seen as the

choice and responsibility of learners who need to make decisions and take responsibility

for their learning or lack of learning provided that learning requirements are met.

Differing from its first meaning come to mind in the literature about using real-life

materials, authenticity in ecological perspective means being in action and mind by

deciding what genuinely feels and believes and rejecting doing something just because

that needs to be done, as a step of the procedure developed by out of class forces.

26

Based on the books, Teaching Unplugged (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009) and

Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy, and Authenticity (van

Lier, 1996), the similarities of Dogme ELT and AAA curriculum were displayed in a

previous study by Parry (2012). Examining each method’s three tenets, Parry informed

that Conversation-Driven and Autonomy of AAA Curriculum shared on giving

importance to meaningful conversations considering social proponents of the interaction

process which can be scaffolded by the teacher when needed. Material-Light tenet was

associated with Authenticity of AAA Curriculum as they both imply that the teaching

materials should be context sensitive and developed by teachers and learners as part of

learning components of the particular teaching ecosystem, not by alien forces. Lastly,

Emergent-Language comes close to Awareness regarding learner factor, and their mental

activity as both implies emergent system theory (2012, pp. 56-57).

Looking closer to the two books of Dogme ELT and AAA curriculum, further

similarities can be detected as they both emphasize on the learners and their needs.

Assuming in both teaching philosophies that learners initiate learning, and teachers do

not teach language but facilitate and scaffold learners during their engagements with

meaningful affordances. While many methods presented in this paper try to limit, shape

or restrict the teachers, Dogme ELT and AAA Curriculum hear language teachers’

voices and advise them to do action-research for getting a better understanding of their

learners, their practice and ultimately their professional development. Besides, both

philosophies emphasize that technology should remain a little behind in education.

However, it is a must to say that these similarities are not unexpected when taking into

consideration that Thornbury (2013) states van Lier’s works inspirational for him to

know about terms such as “ecolinguistics, emergence, affordances, sociocultural

learning theory, scaffolding” (para. 2) which can be traced as sharing features in both

teaching philosophies.

2.5 Criticism of Dogme ELT

With its provocative emergence in the field, Dogme ELT and its principles have

encountered a great deal of criticism from publishers and teachers assuming its

unsuitability in different contexts, accusing of being unrealistic and lack-structured.

Moreover, Dogme teachers were labelled as lazy and unprofessional. Also, some

claimed that Dogme was not well-grounded in pedagogy even though in the first place

27

Thornbury (2000) stated but his pleasure of having echoes from many humanistic

educational pedagogies, communicative approaches. As a response to harsh criticism

towards Dogme ELT, Meddings and Thornbury (2003) put forward the resemblance

with the reactions to Dogme 95, stating “many film-makers felt hostility to the Dogme

95 group, accusing of setting unnatural and unnecessary changes, but Von Trier insists

that Dogme 95 restored the joy to film making” (p. 1). Additionally, Thornbury stated

(2005) that this irritation may derive from a hint that teachers’ insecurity towards their

role and felling to lose their authority in their high-structured classroom. In his article

‘Dancing in the dark?’ in which he also evaluated adaptability of Dogme to various

teachings purposes, learners’ needs and contexts pointing out “the Dogme vows were

not carved in stone” (2005, p. 4).

The criticism of Dogme ELT regarding “lack of structure and unpredictability”

raised with its learning outcomes due to the emergent principle which aims to meet

long-term aims considering the needs of learners sensitively in the specific context by

learner-generated contents rather than a pre-planned syllabus in traditional teaching.

Since Dogme requires considerable dexterity from teachers “since they not only have to

work with the raw material of the learners’ output. But, they have to transmute this base

metal into pure gold” (Thornbury, para. 8), the teachers who are inexperienced or a

well-equipped with language competence are expected to find this way of teaching

laborious.

The most debated issue over Dogme was its rejecting coursebooks nature.

However, Meddings and Thornbury (2003) responded that their aim never meant to

exclude coursebooks but approach them critically:

If publishers are dismissive, it may be because they

misunderstand the central notion of Dogme. It is not the books that we

oppose. It is the prevailing culture of mass-produced, shrink-wrapped

lessons, delivered in an anodyne in-flight magazine style. Worse, in their

syllabuses, their in-flight courses peddle the idea that the learning of a

language runs along a predetermined route with the regularity and

efficiency of a Swiss train. (2003, p. 1)

However, understanding the firm dependency on the coursebooks, Thornbury

came up with Dogway, a checklist for coursebooks that promotes Dogme values and

28

which could make Dogme ELT “more sophisticated,” not faded. In Dogway, a

coursebook needs to be “high on interactivity, low on text, emergent, facilitative,

reflective, grammar-lite, problematizing, non-incremental, self-sufficient and cheap

(Thornbury, 2005, p. 5).

When Thornbury referred to ideal Dogme classroom “with a few chairs, a

blackboard, a teacher and some students” (2000, p. 2)), It was perceived that Dogme

ELT opposing technology in all matters and the teachers of Dogme unprofessional,

irresponsible, old-fashioned. In the 2011 IATEFL conference in Brighton, a heated

discussion arose over Dogme ELT and its low-tech teaching language principle. Over

the debate, Thornbury stated that it was mostly irrelevant and did not adequately address

to the main issue and slipped away to the advantages of technology in our life, rather

than in language learning (2011c).

Dogme philosophy acknowledges that as there are good reasons for integrating

technology into language education, there are also bad reasons for not. Thornbury

(2011c) outlined four possible problems with employing technology in language

teaching. Firstly, the delivery model problem aims to highlight a misunderstanding,

which real learning is not about gaining extensive information quicker and better via

technology; this way of thinking even leads publishers to extend their products to online

platforms and formats works with a variety of technological devices. Secondly, the

theory of the vacuum problem is exposition towards society’s attitudes towards

technology as if it is something that pedagogy needs to fit in, rather than technology

should fit in pedagogy. “Rather than the learning purpose determining the technology, it

is the technological tail that seems to wag the pedagogical dog. What theories of

learning underpin the claims being made for educational technology? We deserve to

know!” (para. 5). Thirdly, the attention deficit problem is about the danger of

distraction in the technological environment which includes many superficial things,

and the teachers were invited to be critical about using technology in their classrooms

with its distracting concentration which is learning require. Using mobile phones while

driving and using mobile phones while learning a language can result in the same way.

Lastly, the added value problem draws attention that technology is given more value

than necessary, and teachers who are not used to technology perceived to be insufficient.

Teachers may not just think it necessary to teach a language through technology, as they

want to capture much more useful moments that they can use in a class of interaction.

29

Although Dogme appears anti-technologic, the central rejection of Dogme has

never been on technology, but on the outsider materials and accepting them without a

second thought. Thus, Dogme tries to show a way for teachers to use materials

including technological ones critically. Despite the criticisms, Dogme ELT was found

flexible and compatible approach which mainly could be adapted with technology

concerning the needs of learners. For instance, according to Banegas, “one would think

that ICT rejection is a standing principle in Dogme ELT and that ‘teaching unplugged’ is

the norm. However, it does not seem to be as radical as it enters into reality and our

rapidly changing times” (Banegas, 2012, p. 5). Also, Vickers (2009) suggested that Web

2.00 based language learning can be colligated with Dogme as the four criteria of

Warschauer for electronic learning activities to be most purposeful and effective can be

achieved in Dogme classes:

1 be learner-centered, with students having a fair amount of control over

their planning and implementation,

2 be based on authentic communication ways rhetorically appropriate for

the medium,

3 3 be tied to making some real difference in the World or in the students’

place in it

4 provide students an opportunity to explore and express their involving

identify. (Warschauer, 2000, p. 57)

In 2014, Sasidharan conducted a study in India to find solutions for deficiency in

speaking skills among engineering students coming from rural areas and did not have

the chance to learn English beforehand. Consequently, anxiety was viewed as a crucial

problem due to the lack of proficiency and practice of the language. She also concluded

that Dogme teaching could help both learners and teachers to participate in

conversational communication more in the classroom. Besides, an important point

regarding the use of technology in Dogme ELT was highlighted in the study. Sasidharan

stated Dogme did not deserve to be called anti-technologic, on the contrary, “recent

attempts to map Dogme principles on to language learning with web 2.0 tools (under the

term “Dogme 2.0”) are considered evidence of Dogme being in transition and therefore

of being compatible with new technology” (2014, p. 35).

30

In response to the directed criticism, Dogme ELT has shown its compatibility

within different contexts. Along with Meddings and Thornbury, many Dogme

supporters shared positive feedback from many different parts of the world, and they

suggest guidance for those who like to try Dogme ELT. As Thornbury stated, Dogme

has never been an “orchestrated method” but an emergent, co-constructed phenomenon:

a case of “natural selection” (2013).

2.6. Applications of Dogme ELT

The main concern of Dogme is to eliminate the teaching components which do

not embrace the values and ideology of local context, and the ones which are from-

focused, prescript, leading back formation effect and exam-oriented teaching. Thus,

Dogme principles work for a teaching that promotes healthy interaction in the social

environment of the classroom where learners are active participants and scaffolded by

the teacher provided with an emergent syllabus accordingly their needs. As Meddings

and Thornbury acknowledged in proposing this alternative teaching:

There are no language exponents (the language will emerge from

the activity), no timings (this will depend on where your class take the

activity), and no levels (these activities are designed to adapt to and

reflect the abilities of the learners). There are no worksheets to

photocopy: each activity is ready - with perhaps a little homework from

yourself and your learners - to use. They are designed to come to life in

class. (2009, p. 22)

Also, for the teachers, they purported Dogme as another way of being a teacher,

“more an attitude shift, a state of mind, a different way of being a teacher” (p. 21) as it

gives importance to individual and appears adaptable to the local context by

highlighting its particularity.

31

Figure 2. Interaction in Dogme teaching (Rebuffet-Broadus & Wright, 2014, p. 7)

Following the popularity of Dogme ELT, the trials in different contexts have

appeared, the case studies and action researchers have been conducted in order to

understand its applicability. For instance, Rebuffet-Broadus and Wright (2014) planned

a Dogme lesson and developed a flow chart accordingly that depicts the interaction in

the classroom (see Figure 1). The first hit the eye shown via arrows in Figure 2 above

displays how actively the teacher is interacting with all students throughout the class. In

an authoritarian class, these arrows would probably look like straight lines from the

32

teacher to the students. It can say to us that Dogme embraces transformative teaching,

not a transmissive or high-structured one.

As it seen in Figure 2, the lesson starts with a conversation triggered by the

teacher paying attention to learners if they have something interesting to say and

encouraging them to leave the stage to the learners and scaffolds when needed. This

warm-up activity cannot lead to full participation because of the hesitant students who

are represented on the right side of the chart. For them, a more structured activity, a task

is set which is still related to the discussion and can be done with less-material such as

role plays, peer-created exercises, word-mapping activities, story creation, substitution

tables, performing tasks. The outgoing group represented in the left, the teacher deals

with the emergence of the language and help those keep talking and acts their errors

afterward. Rebuffet-Broadus and Wright (2014) indicated, “these stages will allow the

teacher to identify and address learner difficulties and also respond to learners’

questions about language” (p. 8).

In his online blog, Renshaw (2010) shared his own experiences with Dogme

ELT. He depicted several issues to re-consider of applicability of Dogme: (a) there are a

large number of English language teachers out there with no formals training, (b) there

are a lot of English language teachers who have not mastered the language they are

supposed to be teaching. Therefore, many teachers are developing their teaching skills

over time with the help of coursebooks. He also mentioned as a school director who still

wears the uniform of ‘Vow chastity’ once tried Dogme ELT in his school but ended up

with failure because of parent’s expectations and burden of work on teachers. Renshaw

stated that although the experience was fabulous, the economic aspects of the profession

should not be ignored.

On the other hand, Sketchley (2012) as one of the pioneers of researching into

Dogme English Language Teaching (ELT), aimed to investigate the teachers’ and

student’s attitudes towards the key tenets of Dogme ELT with his study, which took

place in England with 15 teachers and 15 students from 3 different schools. The findings

put forward that although many teachers were not aware of Dogme ELT, the principles

were implemented less or more depending on the teacher and the students in the

classroom apparently as the pedagogical foundations of Dogme had parallels with many

present methods, approaches, and techniques of ELT. Sketchly (2012) came up with a

suggestion as ‘balanced’ teaching which colligates a structured teaching and eclectic

teaching. This teaching enables teachers to response the needs of the learners and act

33

accordingly either structured teaching which is form focused, prescriptive, coursebook

led, emphasis with materials, teacher-centered, pre-planned teaching or eclectic teaching

which is focused on meaning, emergent language effectively advantaging material

prompts, real conversations, responsive teaching by scaffolding and student-centered.

As another context investigation, Siham (2013) sought the possibility of Dogme

ELT in Algeria and examined Algerian secondary school teachers’ and students’

perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards this new philosophy of language teaching

and learning. The result of his study showed that that teachers’ dependency on

textbooks was very heavy and there was no attempt to create real conversation inside

the classroom. 88% of the participant teachers rejected Dogme as it may threaten the

‘authority’ of the teacher and ‘won’t lead anywhere.’ However, by contrast with the

teachers, the students believed more in the suitability of Dogme ELT and showed

excitement to study English in Dogme way. Siham suggested that teachers needed to

catch up with new ways of teaching and should participate in specific programs to

control their reliance on materials (2013).

Xeri conducted an action research study at the University of Malta with

postsecondary ESL students in 2012; remarkably the study was experimenting Dogme

in an exam preparation course. In the study, a lesson was planned Dogme’s three

proponents accordingly and performed meticulously without interrupting the flow of the

lesson. Following the finalizing the lesson with a satisfaction, Xeri (2012) stated that

Dogme allowed students to benefit from both interaction and emergent language even in

assessment-focused pedagogy and allowed teachers to be empowered. However, in

another study, Worth (2012) examined the difference in the opinions of nine Japanese

students between course-book based and Dogme way of learning. The qualitative study

illustrated that learners were strongly appreciating coursebook- based learning in their

exam preparation.

In his study, Rahul (2015) drew attention to the constraints that Dogme could

face in the context of India, where most of the teachers suffered from low well-being

and limitation of time. The major drawback was mentioned as learners’ and parent’s

expectation because most of them focused on the product rather than process concerning

what was covered in the syllabus and what was not. Also, another significant factor

stated as the population in a regular Indian classroom can access to hundred, and such

conditions are not very easy and suitable to regard the need of all learners individually,

and Dogme was seen as unpractical in this specific context.

34

The mentioned studies or experiences of teachers present Dogme’s application

in different contexts, and while some found Dogme very meaningful and effective

language teaching, others doubted its practicality. Although they did not agree in a

common idea, still one thing is assured that they experienced meaningful language

teaching. Acknowledging that teachers could enjoy their Dogme way in any level,

Meddings and Thornbury (2003) emphasized the adaptability of Dogme ELT to a

variety of forms specifying to the context of the classroom with its low-structured,

conversation-driven nature and not demanding too much nature. Therefore, they

suggested five types of Dogme from Dogme-light to Dogme-heavy. Respectively, Punk

Dogme is doing Dogme lesson spontaneously to foster creativity in the classroom. Talk

Dogme is to engage learners with a conversation to nourish speaking-skills as just a

shift from the coursebook. Deep Dogme compensates for the whole lesson, and Dogme

principles are applied thoroughly in the lesson hour. Full Dogme is a Dogme classroom,

where learners bring their materials, the teacher takes the role of active affordance

facilitator and scaffolder. Dream Dogme is a Dogme school where learners are not

levelled according to their proficiency, the coursebooks and worksheets are not allowed,

and there is no profit. However, even the founders of Dogme doubt its possibility.

2.7. Dogme ELT in Turkey

In Turkey, the overall practice of teaching English has been grammar-oriented in

a teacher-centered and transmissive way. In many cases, English teachers take

‘structure’ as their central point omitting communication, even a student-centered

approach is perceived as learners’ co-operative participation over with grammar

worksheets (Ersöz, 2004). Also, students often aim to learn English to find a better job

by succeeding in multiple-choice exams, which measure their proficiency according to

their lexical, grammar knowledge and translation. However, the English proficiency

level of Turkey does not portray a promising picture with a downward tendency.

According to Education First statistics, while in 2012 Turkey positioned 32nd position

out of the 88 countries, it has dropped to 73th in 7 years. As Cetinkaya suggested, such

results could be generated from the pedagogical methods and approaches in use,

“ineffective pedagogical methods ultimately ‘hinder students’ willingness to

communicate in English” (2005, p. 118).

35

A study conducted in 2014 by a collaboration between two organizations: British

Council and TEPAV (Turkish Economic Policies Research Foundation) to investigate

English language teaching in the state schools of Turkey revealed a list of factors

prevent teachers from using a communicative approach:

• the need to prepare students for formal, grammar-based national

examinations;

• lack of training in ‘how to’ apply a communicative approach in Turkish

classroom contexts;

• fear of losing control of a class, creating too much noise, students

speaking in Turkish if, for example, they encourage students to ‘work in

pairs/ groups’.

• textbooks which do not require students to use thinking skills or

personalize information;

• the pressure to ‘finish the textbook’ on time;

• a punitive inspectorate that requires teachers to use traditional, grammar-

based methods.” (2014, p. 77)

The results showed the pitfalls of English teaching in Turkey such as grammar-

oriented exams, lack of communication activities, lack of training, high-structured

classrooms, dependency on coursebooks and traditional methods. These factors could be

controversy with any communicative approach as well as to Dogme ELT.

However, throughout the years, rather than focusing on the core components of

the teaching, the deficiencies have been tried to be compensated with more technologic

devices, more imported materials, and even imported teachers that could only benefit

the population with upper-medium and higher income. As Dogancay-Aktuna

summarized earlier, “Though more and more English-medium schools are being

established, both privately and by the state [...], there are great discrepancies in the

quality and extent of instruction available. It is generally the wealthier, upper-middle-

class children who enjoy access to good quality English instruction” (1998, p. 31).

Apart from being irrelevant to the Turkish context, the predominance of imported

materials and the understanding of native teachers’ superior have often led the Turkish

teachers to feel inadequate with their skills, the teachers are restricted and passive,

follow the coursebooks’ activity steps. Sarıcoban (2012) suggested that foreign

36

language policy makers influenced the teachers and the achievement of foreign

language education by designing curricula, coursebooks, methods and approaches ready

to consume way. In the same vein, Işık (2008) pointed out that English teachers had to

abide by rules of policymakers and they were just consumers.

In 2012, Akca was the first to evaluate and conclude the need for researching

Dogme in this context as it appears an alternative approach to provide better language

learning experience for the Turkish context. she suggested "a change of approach with

due regard to the low English proficiency level of Turkey and added that can be done

via "action research into Dogme might be carried out by suitably trained teachers in

local contexts at primary, secondary and tertiary levels, with potential for feedback into

national or international academic research projects" (2012).

Following Akca's understanding, in 2016, Coskun carried out the first research

into Dogme ELT in Turkey with 38 university students and three teachers (one of them

was native) from two different universities and investigated their opinions about Dogme

ELT. Three teachers were informed about Dogme and its principles, and they asked to

prepared lessons accordingly. Following the experimental lessons, Coskun interviewed

the teachers and students. The findings represented interesting results. The students

indicated they liked real-life, relevant topics and the lesson contributed to their

imagination. None of the students stated the lesson was "boring" or "not challenging

enough," and it could also be integrated with grammar lessons. Although most teachers

and students expressed their enjoyment, teachers also find it difficult to monitor

emergent language, especially with low-level students. Another result was the students'

negative thoughts on coursebooks which they found boring and unnatural on the other

hand some participants mentioned coursebooks as 'inevitable' due to the exams. Due to

the conflicting opinions generating from traditionalist expectations Coskun (2016)

suggested that Dogme shall be integrated into the Turkish context as a teaching

supplement likewise Sketcher’s “Balanced Approach (2012).

In light of insightful contributions of Akca and Coskun, this study was planned

to be carried out in Dogme supportive school at primary level (from year 1 to year 8) to

shed a light into Dogme ELT with its applicability, the teachers’ attitudes and possible

constraints in the context of Turkey. Also, it was hoped to inspire and inform the

teachers of Turkey who are in the East struggling with lack of technology and lacking

even basic school facilities, or in the West prospering English education with special

speaking classes with native teachers, with this minimalist but practical approach:

Dogme.

37

CHAPTER III

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction

This chapter presents all relevant information about the nature of the research,

the participants, and how the data was collected and analyzed. The main concern of this

study is to analyze the implementation of key tenets of Dogme ELT, the attitudes

towards Dogme ELT from the point of view Turkish and native English teachers and

investigate the constraints that teachers can confront while applying Dogme ELT in the

context of Turkey.

3.2. Research Design

From a descriptive perspective, this study is qualitative in nature, in that it seeks

to document, analyze, and interpret naturally occurring data in the school setting where

Dogme ELT is encouraged in language teaching program. In such a study, according to

Marshall & Rossman (1999), “the data emerges dynamically and socially in the

experiences of the participants.” Also, there is no attempt to generalize the result to all

teachers and their practices as in the nature of descriptive research, as pointed out by

Glass & Hopkins (1984), “Descriptive research involves gathering data that describe

events and then organizes, tabulates, depicts, and describes the data collection.”

Complementary to the qualitative data, quantitative information was integrated

into the overall process of data collection, analysis and reporting. The advantages of

including numbers in qualitative research were indicated by Maxwell (2010), “numbers

give precision to statements about the frequency, amount, or typicality of particular

phenomena,” and “provide a legitimate and important sort of data for qualitative

researchers” (pp. 475-482).

3.3. Context of the study

This study was conducted in a private school in Adana, Turkey during the 2018-

2019 education year with 20 English teachers from primary and middle school

departments. To clarify, Turkey has the 4+4+4 education system, which means the first

38

4 is the primary school, the second 4 is the middle school, and the last 4 is high school.

The first eight years of education are compulsory.

English education in this institution starts from year one. In each level, Turkish

and native English teachers are partners, so they teach the same class in different hours.

The language program mainly focuses on communicative aspects of language and

teaching English inductively. Thus, the school, in general, is open to renovations and

encourages Dogme ELT with the methods linked to Dogme teaching such as teaching

without coursebooks, student-centered, Communicative Language Teaching, Task-based

Language Teaching. Also, the Content-based instruction corporates with the language

program through a specialized curriculum and native teachers deliver math and science

lessons as well. Furthermore, until this year of education, no coursebook had been

allowed to be used in the school. The only material to be used is ‘Activity Book’ which

is prepared at the beginning of the school year by the teachers of the class freely. This

material includes mostly games, tasks, pair work activities or project outlines to be

carried out during class hours. Besides, the teachers are supposed to prepare a road map

that works as a schedule for the whole year indicating when the topics will be covered.

The school provides computers, projectors and smartboards for each class, but also in

primary school native teachers have their own English classrooms and split lessons with

10 or 13 students.

3.4. Participants of the Study

This study aimed to gain a better insight into Dogme ELT with the participation

of primary and middle school teachers of the school. The volunteered, 13 Turkish and

seven native teachers participated in the research by means of convenience sampling.

Participants’ names stayed anonymous, and pseudonyms were assigned to them. The

participants’ gender, year of teaching experience and their teaching educations were not

taken into consideration. The permission from the management was sought before

distributing the questionnaires, and a consent form was given to the teachers to get their

permit before the interviews.

3.5. Instruments

In order to collect data, two kinds of instruments were used: a questionnaire and

a semi-structured interview. The questionnaire has multiple choice and open-ended

39

questions that were adapted from Sketchley’s 2011 study in accordance with the present

study’s research questions. The questionnaires were distributed to the teachers as hard-

copy or electronic versions. The questionnaire starts by requesting the participants to

indicate if they are native or Turkish teachers. The first twelve questions seek to

establish the teachers’ practices of teaching and their views on language teaching by

asking their previous experiences and ideas about teaching without materials as well as

other Dogme related practices and activities. The last four questions investigate the

teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme by asking them to indicate their ideas and knowledge

about Dogme ELT and its tenets (see Appendix 1).

The semi-structured Interview questions were adapted from McLean (2011) and

developed concurrently with the qualitative data as an instrument of concurrent

triangulation. As in parallel with the questionnaire, the first three questions of interview

investigate the teachers’ practices of teaching, and question five and six ask their ideas

about materials used in the institution. Question seven to 11 seek to understand the

teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme ELT and its key tenets. Question four and 12 aim to

establish the constraint that the teachers confront, and question 13 asks the teachers to

indicate suggestions (see Appendix 2).

A semi-structured interview was described by Schiffin (2014), the interviewer

can control the discussion through a certain topic, but also let the interviewees act

towards the questions as to how they find appropriate. Just 15 to 20 minutes of semi-

structured interviews were conducted in a friendly atmosphere with four teachers from

primary and middle schools. The volunteered participants represented two groups of the

teachers (native and non-native). Thus, a native and a Turkish teacher from primary

school, and again a native and a Turkish teacher from middle school were selected as

interviewees.

During the interviews, an audio recording was used with the permission of the

participants. Also, the participants were informed that they were able to answer

questions both in English and in Turkish in order to create a comfortable and non-

threatening atmosphere as they may prefer to express themselves better in Turkish and

may yield more detailed responses and ultimately more reliable results in the qualitative

setting.

40

3.6. Piloting the instrument

Although the term ‘piloting’ often recalls a mini study in social studies, “a pilot

study can also be the pre-testing or ‘trying out’ of a particular research instrument”

(Baker, 1994, p.182). There are many good reasons for conducting a pilot study prior to

distributing the questionnaires and starting the data collection process as there can be

some downfalls and problems in the questions regarding their adequacy or just simply

being too difficult for the participant to understand and answer relevantly. This lack can

lead the whole process to undesirable points. Also, Alami (2015) points out the

importance of piloting by stating “a pilot has several advantages such as increasing the

reliability, validity, and practicality of the questionnaire” (p. 1335).

So as to prevent any forthcoming problem in the present study, the drafts of the

questionnaire were handed in four participants who represent the target participants.

According to Bryman, “it is best to find a small set of respondents who are comparable

to members of the population from which the sample for the full study will be taken”

(2012). Thus, two of the selected participants were native and non-native English

teachers from primary school; the other two of them were again native and non-native

English teachers from middle school. According to the results of the pilot study, the

possible pitfalls of the questionnaire were detected and treated carefully. The questions

too broad in scope were changed to multiple choice ones to avoid irrelevant responses.

The complex questions which had ambiguous or confusing words were re-worded in a

simple and transparent way.

3.7. Data Analysis

As the study integrated quantitative information with qualitative data, to analyze

the data of the questionnaires, two methods were used: (a) content analysis for

qualitative data, (b) descriptive statistical analysis for quantitative data. As Schreiber

informed, “When numerical data are collected, the description of these data is termed

descriptive statistics,” and “In qualitative research, descriptive statistics allow

researchers to provide another context, a richer picture or enhanced representation, in

which to examine the phenomenon of interest” (2008, p. 209). Thus, the quantitative

data were analyzed by means of Microsoft Excel 2013, tabulated according to the result

of descriptive statistics, and percentages were presented.

41

According to Berelson (1952), “content analysis is a research tool used to

determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given

qualitative data (i.e., text).” Hence, in order to analyze the qualitative data obtained

from the interviews, audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim to

electronic text by the researcher and the Turkish parts were translated into English by

using the back-translation method. Later on, the data was checked by a colleague to

make sure that translation and transcription were processed objectively. Lastly, the

transcripts of the interviews and the qualitative data of the questionnaires were color-

coded and analyzed by means of coding protocols of content analysis.

3.8. Trustworthiness

In order to ensure the reliability and validity of the study, different data sources

were combined, and triangulation procedures were applied while analyzing qualitative

data. As stated by Thurmond, “the intent of using triangulation is to decrease, negate, or

counterbalance the deficiency of a single strategy, thereby increasing the ability to

interpret the findings” (2011, p. 253). For this study contribute to a broader discussion

of Dogme ELT, the results were compared to existing studies in the discussion chapter.

3.9 Ethical issues

As this study utilizes human participants, the privacy and security of the

participants should be taken into consideration. Thus, the permission from the school

management and a consent form (see Appedix 3) from the participants were obtained in

advance so as to prevent future problems that might arise during the research process.

Also, the names of the participants were replaced with code names (cryptonym) to

ensure confidentiality.

42

CHAPTER IV

4. FINDINGS

4.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the data collected via (a) the questionnaires

(see Appendix 1) with the participation of 20 English language teachers as seven native

speakers and 13 Turkish English language teachers; (b) the interviews (see Appendix 2)

conducted with two native and two Turkish teachers out of 20 participants as

representatives of their groups.

4.2. The Results of the Questionnaires

The questions of the questionnaires were adapted from Sketchley (2012) in

accordance with the research questions of this present study. The first 12 questions

aimed to gain a better understanding of the teacher participants’ teaching practices and

views on English language teaching. The last four questions sought to establish the

teachers’ understanding of Dogme ELT with its key tenets and its feasibility in the

specific context of Turkey. The data obtained from the responses of the questionnaires

were categorized and presented under two subtitles: The Teachers’ Practices and Views

of Language Teaching; Teachers’ Knowledge of Dogme as an Approach in ELT and

Attitudes Towards Dogme ELT and Its Key Tenets.

4.2.1. The Teachers’ Practices and Views of Language Teaching

To shed light into the teachers’ practices and experiences, firstly they were asked

to indicate if they had any experience of delivering a lesson without materials such as

coursebooks, handouts, and worksheets. According to the answers (see Table 1 below)

18 out of 20 the participants (90%) had the experience of delivering a lesson without

materials. One participant from each group indicated no experience. Thus, we can

understand that majority of the participants in this school were familiar with materials-

light teaching.

43

Table 1.

The Teachers’ Experience of Teaching Without Material

Participants Yes % No %

Turkish teachers 12 92.30 1 7.70

Native teachers 6 85.71 1 14.29

Total 18 90 2 10

To seek the opinions on the feasibility of materials-light teaching into their

lessons, the teachers were asked to indicate which lessons they would consider teaching

in the absence of a coursebook. As seen in Table 2 below, all of the participants (100%)

stated they would deliver speaking lessons without a coursebook. However, the gap is

remarkable between the closest following options, vocabulary (50%) and pronunciation

(50%). Also, the least selected option was reading (15%) and was followed by listening

(25%).

Table 2.

Which Lesson Would You Teach Without a Coursebook?

Lessons Turkish % Native % Total %

Grammar 5 38.46 2 28.57 7 35

Vocabulary 7 53.84 3 42.85 10 50

Pronunciation 5 38.46 5 71.42 10 50

Discourse 4 30.79 2 28.57 6 30

Speaking 13 100 7 100 20 100

Listening 2 15.38 3 42.85 5 25

Reading 1 7.69 2 28.57 3 15

Writing 7 53.84 2 28.57 9 45

When we look in groups (see Table 2 above), it can be seen that writing and

vocabulary (53.84%) are sharing the position of second mostly stated lesson among the

Turkish participants while pronunciation (71.42%) is the second among native

participants. On the other hand, the lessons of reading (7.69%) and listening (15.38%)

were selected least by the Turkish participant; and Grammar, discourse, reading and

writing lessons had the percentage, 28.57% as the lowest by the native participants.

44

Table 3. Why the Teachers Sometimes Do Not Use Materials or Coursebooks?

The reasons Turkish Teachers

% Native Teachers

% Total %

1. It happens spontaneously in class

3 23.07 2 28.57 5 25

2. I do this to generate interest in the lesson

1 7.69 0 - 1 5

3. I do this mainly to encourage students to speak

6 46.15 0 - 6 30

4. To add variety or a surprise for students during the lesson

1 7.69 1 14.28 2 10

5. Students could lead the lesson in an interesting way

2 15.38 1 14.28 3 15

6. Other 0 - 3 42.57 3 15

The reasons why the teachers do not use coursebooks sometimes were

investigated via question 3. The teachers were asked to select one option to indicate

their reasons. As it can be seen from the Table 3 above, the most commonly stated

reason for not using material is I do this mainly to encourage students to speak (30%).

However, this option was only selected by the six Turkish participants while none of the

native teachers chose it. Also, It happens spontaneously in the class is the second most

stated reason (25%) and selected by three Turkish and two native participants. The least

selected reason is I do this to generate interest in the lesson (5%) and again selected by

only one Turkish teacher. Also, according to the responses of two Turkish and one

native participants, they do not use materials so that students could lead the lesson in an

interesting way (15%). The reason, to add variety or a surprise for students during the

lesson was indicated by one native and one Turkish teachers (10%). Whereas the reason

for not using materials to generate interest in the classrooms was selected only by one

Turkish participant. In addition, almost half of the native teachers (42.57 %) selected

other option and specified their reasons:

“It is the expectation of the school not to use a coursebook”

“It gives freedom to the teacher”

“If an activity works better without material. For example, something

involving Total Physical Response or natural conversation”

45

The fourth question is an open-ended question asking participants for their

opinions regarding the importance of the coursebook. First of all, the participants were

asked to indicate if they think the coursebook is important for teaching English

effectively, and then, they were asked to elaborate their answers by explaining the

underlying reasons for their answers. According to the results, while 40% of the

participants mentioned coursebooks are important, 60% of them had the opposing view

(see Table 4 below). The results display that more than half of the participants from

each group (61.53% Turkish; 57.14% native) indicated that the coursebooks are not

important for them to teach English in an effective way.

Table 4.

The Importance of a Coursebook for Teaching English Effectively

Participants Important % Not important %

Turkish Teachers 5 38.46 8 61.53

Native Teachers 3 42.85 4 57.14

Total 8 40 12 60

As for the reasons concerning the insignificance of materials, the most

frequently stated view was that using a coursebook is not essential. Secondly, the

restrictiveness of having a coursebook was pointed out by the participants as they feel

often in a hurry to finish the units even if the students understand the targets or not.

Also, some teachers indicated preparing materials instead of a coursebook could help to

increase creativity and variety contributing both to the teachers and the students.

However, even though the participants, in general, indicated their positive feelings

about a coursebook free teaching, particularly native teachers also mentioned their

concerns related to the lack of structure in the lesson.

Similarly, the participants who signified the importance of the coursebooks also

mentioned the lack of structure in teaching in absence of a coursebook. Moreover, they

put forward the benefits of using a coursebook. According to them, the advantages of

using a coursebook includes providing ‘equal teaching’ to all students from different

classes, representing a useful source, saving time when planning lessons, being eligible,

giving ‘a sense of security’ and guiding to the teachers, especially the teachers without

experience.

46

With an open-ended question, the teachers’ feelings about teaching without

materials like coursebooks, handouts, and worksheets were investigated. The teachers’

feelings were categorized as positive and negative according to the content analysis and

presented in Table 5 below. The results show that that more than half of the participants

(60%) expressed positive feelings towards Materials-light teaching while 40% of the

participants indicated that they would feel ‘uncomfortable’. In groups, it can be seen

that the Turkish teachers (69.23%) had more positive feelings about teaching without

materials compared to their native colleagues (42.85%).

Table 5.

The Teachers’ Feelings About Teaching Without Materials.

Participants Positive % Negative %

Turkish Teachers 9 69.23 4 30.69

Native Teachers 3 42.85 4 57.14

Total 12 60 8 40

In their answers, the teachers provided different feelings about this teaching. For

instance, while positive feelings such as feeling ‘free’ and ‘creative’ were referred, two

Turkish teachers mentioned they would feel fine if they had enough teaching experience

and two other Turkish teachers stated they would feel the need of preparing extra

activities if they did not have materials. Adding to that, four of the native teachers and

three Turkish teachers indicated that they would feel ‘uncomfortable’, ‘inadequate’ and

even ‘frustrated’ giving the reason that the students are accustomed with course-book

based, structured model of teaching in their other Turkish lessons.

Table 6.

The Teachers’ Use of Coursebook on a Weekly Basis.

Frequency Turkish teachers % native teachers % Total %

Never 4 30.76 3 42.85 7 35

Once a week 3 23.07 2 28.57 5 25

Twice a week 3 23.07 0 - 3 15

Three times a week 0 - 1 14.28 1 5

Always 1 7.69 1 14.28 2 10

Other 2 15.38 0 - 2 10

47

To understand the teachers’ practices of using a coursebook on a regular basis,

the participants were asked to reflect on how often they use a coursebook by question

six. According to the data, illustrated in Table 6 above, never is the most selected option

(35%). It is followed by once a week (25%) and twice a week (15%). While always was

selected by two participants (10%), the least selected option was three times a week

(5%). Among the groups, it can be traced that native teachers are accumulated on the

less-materials side by indicating never (42.85%) and once a week (28.57%). On the

other hand, Turkish teachers show variety in their answers: never (30.76%), once a

week (23.07%) and twice a week (23.07%). Also, two Turkish teachers chose the other

option and responded that they often use coursebooks only because they are in an exam

preparation year. Additionally, the always option was selected by one participant from

each group of teachers.

Table 7.

Do You Find the Use of a Coursebook Restrictive in Class?

Participants Yes % No %

Turkish Teachers 11 84.61 2 15.39

Native Teachers 7 100 0 -

Total 18 90 2 10

The restrictiveness of the coursebooks was investigated through the teachers’

opinions. As illustrated in Table 7 above, majority of the participants (18 teachers)

indicated they find the use of a coursebook restrictive, while only two Turkish teachers

stated that the use of a coursebook was ‘not restrictive’.

The activities that the teachers could use in their practice of teaching without the

aid of a coursebook, handouts, and other similar material were investigated by question

eight. The participants were asked to list which activities they use or would use in such

teaching. Using interactive games for teaching was highlighted commonly by most

native and Turkish teachers in their description of this specific materials-light teaching

practice. Games were followed by pair-work activities and conversation-based activities

enriched with interesting topics for the students. Also, group work activities were stated

by both groups of teachers. It can be concluded that the majority of the participants

prefer a range of different types of activities which are student-centered, interactive and

speaking-focused for material-free lessons, while only a minority expressed the need of

48

full lesson and yearly unit plans. Table 8 below shows the list of activities preferred by

both Turkish and Native teachers.

Table 8.

The Activities That the Teachers Would Benefit from Material-Light Teaching.

Native Teachers Turkish Teachers Group work Scaffolding* Monitoring* Allowing the student to bring or create materials Using music Using visual aids* Using drills* Using interactive games Following a unit* Conducting Speaking activities Teaching project-based* Finding interesting topic for conversation

Group work Teaching vocabulary Pair-work activities Teaching Writing* Brainstorming Using Total Physical Response (TPR)* Finding interesting topic for conversation Creating different materials and tasks Using interactive games Preparing a full lesson plan Conducting speaking activities Planning a yearly plan to follow* Teaching task-based Role plays* Using stories*

* The activities that both groups of teachers use in common.

In the question nine, the teachers were asked to indicate if they think that

coursebooks, textbooks and teaching material affect their teaching methodology. As

illustrated in Table 9 below, 80% of the participants stated the materials influenced their

teaching in some way. Among the groups, this answer was indicated by the majority of

the Turkish participants (92.30%) and more than half of the native teachers (57.14%).

Table 9.

Influence of Materials on the Teachers’ Practice of Teaching

Influence % No influence %

Turkish teachers 12 92.30 1 7.70

Native teachers 4 57.14 3 42.86

Total 16 80 4 20

In addition, the participants were asked to comment on the answers they

provided. Most of the participants expressed their concern by stating that the

49

coursebooks are ‘restrictive’ and they ‘put teachers into a frame.’ Along with the

negative comments on coursebooks such as being exam-oriented and boring for

learners, one of the Turkish participants stated that the coursebooks influence their

teaching method as they are written by another person, however she pointed out, “as a

teacher, you can always find a way to change, expand and ‘flourish’ the activities

according to your students' needs, otherwise, you would just teach the book not

English”.

Moreover, among the three native teachers, who indicated that the materials do

not affect their teaching, two participants stated that whether the coursebooks affected

the methodology was not depended on the coursebook, but on the teacher. The other one

pointed out that once they were experienced enough, their teaching would not be

affected by material. Also, one out of 13 Turkish teachers indicated that the material

would not affect their teaching methodology but would only change the content of their

lessons while the rest thought the material has an influence on their teaching one way or

other.

Whether the language exposure via various sources, brought by the teachers,

such as coursebooks and handouts is required in effective language teaching was

investigated through the teachers’ opinions. As illustrated in Table 10 below, more than

half of the participants (55%) had the consensus that such materials are not required for

language exposure by indicating they are often not relevant to their learners while five

participants thought it was a requirement (25%). Besides, the answers were varied

between the groups, nearly half of the native teachers (42.85%) reported it was not

required; however, more than half of the Turkish teachers (69.23%) stated the opposite

and believed it was not a requirement.

Table 10.

The Requirement of Materials for Language Exposure

Participants Yes % No % Both %

Turkish teachers 2 15.38 9 69.23 2 15.38

Native teachers 3 42.85 2 28.57 2 28.57

Total 5 25 11 55 4 20

Besides, four participants indicated neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ by stating both options

could be relevant from time to time especially when teaching for specific purposes like

50

grammar. Thus, they were categorized in ‘both’ section in Table 10. Also, the teachers

explained their answers by highlighting their concerns. The teachers who were agreed

on the materials are not requirement for language exposure indicated that the materials

are not often relevant to the students and can convey some certain ideologies, “most of

the books represent very irrelevant content for learners, I believe that they also convey

different ideologies” (T11, Turkish teacher). Also, it was stated that it is the teachers’

ability to transfer the knowledge, not the coursebooks, and the diversity of the materials

are not often meaningless. On the other hand, one of the native teachers commented that

coursebooks give concrete examples and clarify confusion especially for teaching

grammar points and another native participant highlighted its advantage of saving time.

additionally, two Turkish participants indicated that it was a requirement for teaching

equally and following the same curriculum with other teachers.

In accordance with the Conversation-driven tenet, it was asked the participants

that how they encourage a classroom environment. The answers of the teachers were

displayed in Table 11 and to be able to compare the native teachers’ and Turkish

teachers’ practices and attitudes towards conversation-based classrooms, the analyzed

data was categorized under two sections as native teachers and Turkish teachers.

According to the data, it can be concluded that both groups of participants use desirable

activities for communicative classrooms in their practice of English teaching.

Table 11.

How do the Teachers Encourage a Communicative Environment?

Native Teachers Turkish Teachers Group activities* Use leading questions Non-verbal cues Forge relationships within the class* Make class fun* Trigger perceptive senses such as visual, aural, verbal, kinesthetic Pair work* Role play Use target language Use interesting topics* Repetitive pair cycling to help memory

Use interesting topics* Respectful classroom environment* Motivate Pair work* Games Group work* Competitions Songs Projects Provide low affective filter Use sense of humor* Problem-solving activities/tasks U-shaped classroom Authentic materials Arouse curiosity

* The activities that both groups of teachers use in common.

51

To gain a better understanding of the teachers’ practices which are linked to

Dogme ELT, the participants were asked to indicate one practice they do in the class via

a multiple-choice question. According to the data (see Table 12 below), half of the

teachers indicated (5 native, 5 Turkish teachers) they prepare lessons based on the

current needs of their learners (50 %). Interestingly this option is the most stated

option among the native participants (71.42 %) and followed by respond to learners’

requests for assistance with vocabulary and grammar (14.28 %). Apart from the other

option, the native participants did not choose any other option.

Table 12.

The Practices of Teachers in Accordance with Dogme ELT

Turkish Teachers

% Native Teachers

% n %

Allow learners to choose what materials will be covered.

1 7.69 0 - 1 5

Prepare lessons based upon the current needs of your learners.

5 38.46 5 71.42 10 50

Provide learners the opportunity to create their own material for other learners.

3 23.07 0 - 3 15

Respond to learners' requests for assistance with vocabulary and grammar.

2 15.38 1 14.28 3 15

Encourage learners to incorporate their own native language and culture.

1 7.69 0 - 1 5

Other. 1 7.69 1 14.28 2 10

On the other hand, the Turkish participants showed more variety in their answers

(see Table 12). Among this group, provide learners the opportunity to create their own

material for other learners (23.07 %) was selected the second most stated practice, and

followed by respond to learners' requests for assistance with vocabulary and grammar

(15.38 %). Also, one each participant selected allow learners to choose what materials

will be covered, encourage learners to incorporate their own native language and

culture and the other options (7.69). It may be inferred from the data that the Turkish

teachers are a bit more open to the students’ ideas and feelings over the teaching

materials. Besides, the participants who chose other option voiced:

52

“We have to use all of the above, from time to time, to keep the

learners’ interest alive.” (T18, Turkish teacher)

“Allow learners to give opinions on an activity.” (T5, Native

teacher)

4.2.2. Teachers’ Knowledge of Dogme as an Approach in ELT and Attitudes

Towards Dogme ELT and Its Key Tenets

To understand the teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme ELT, their knowledge of

Dogme as an approach was sought, and their attitudes were concluded from the

answers. Firstly, the participants were requested to describe Dogme ELT in their own

words. According to the analyzed data, majority of the teachers (18 out of 20) reported

that they had the knowledge about Dogme ELT while one Turkish and native teachers

said that they did not know what it is and needed to look it up. Overall, the native

teachers described Dogme ELT only as a communicative approach which embraces

teaching without using published materials. On the other hand, the Turkish teachers

possessed more knowledge regarding Dogme and its key tenets. Rather than

highlighting only the student-centered and communicative characteristics of Dogme

ELT, the Turkish teachers mentioned its other principles as well. For instance, one of

the Turkish teachers pointed out the third tenet of Dogme ELT, Focusing on emergent

language, along with a principle of Materials-light tenet by stating, “They [the students]

sometimes prepare their own materials, and their language emerges naturally”. Also,

another Turkish teacher commented on materials-light teaching, “Class materials should

be relevant to students’ interests and should enhance learning”. One of the teachers also

gave a very specific principle about Dogme, “Students should not be placed into

different level groups”. Adding to this, one teacher commented, “It [Dogme ELT] is a

natural way to teach English [...] There is no specific approach or style to teach

something, it occurs on that day, at that time”. This comment shows that the teacher is

aware of the spontaneity of Dogme ELT and Dogme moments, as well as its principle of

rejecting any methodological structure as mentioned by Thornbury, “no methodological

structures should interfere with, nor inhibit, the free flow of participant-driven input,

output and feedback” (2000, p. 2). Additionally, another Turkish teacher highlighted its

advantages of the freedom of choice and the student-teacher relationship, “it is a system

with plenty of choices, which does not ‘suffocate’ the teacher and students […], and it

strengthens the teacher-student relationships.”

53

Table 13.

Do you consciously follow Dogme ELT?

Turkish teachers % Native

teachers

% Total %

Yes 2 13.38 2 28.57 4 20

Yes (not consciously) 1 7.69 1 14.28 2 10

I try 2 13.38 0 0 2 10

It is necessary 2 13.38 0 0 2 10

I cannot 2 13.38 0 0 2 10

No 4 30.79 4 57.14 8 40

The participants were asked to inform if they consciously follow Dogme ELT.

According to the data, illustrated in Table 13 above, only four participants indicated

they followed Dogme ELT consciously (20% while eight participants reported they did

not (40%). Considering the groups, we can observe that more than half of the native

teachers (57.14%) do not follow, while it is less than half among Turkish teachers

(30.79%). However, native teachers have more percentage indicating ‘yes’ compared to

Turkish teachers (13.38%), this result could be generated from the Turkish participants’

answers differed from only ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses. Thus, the result can give rise to

question the teachers’ knowledge about Dogme ELT since one teacher from each group

mentioned “yes, but not consciously,” by stating the fact that they were not aware of

Dogme ELT. Also, two Turkish teachers abstained from giving a straight answer

whether it is conscious or not and indicated that they try Dogme ELT sometimes.

Another two Turkish participants reported that the methods of Dogme ELT are

encouraged to be implemented in the school, for not only to promote more

communicative activities but also to maintain the accreditations of international

organizations such as Eaquals and the Council of International Schools (CIS). These

teachers considered Dogme ELT as a necessity. On the other hand, another two Turkish

participants pointed out that they cannot implement Dogme teaching due to the

requirements of the Ministry of Education (MEB).

Furthermore, the teachers’ familiarities with the tenets of Dogme were

investigated. To get more reliable responses, the tenets of Dogme ELT were introduced

briefly to the teachers in the question. As illustrated in Table 14 below, five teachers

(25%) indicated that they were not familiar with any of the three tenets while eight of

54

them (40%) pointed out they were familiar with all the tenets of Dogme ELT. While six

out of 20 teachers (30%) reported that they are familiar with only one or two tenets, one

of the participants stated that they only heard about tenets of Dogme ELT.

Table 14.

The Participants’ Familiarities in Terms of the Tenets of Dogme ELT

Turkish teachers % Native teachers % Total %

Familiar 6 53.84 2 28.57 8 40

Partly familiar 5 38.46 1 14.28 6 30

Just heard 0 0 1 14.28 1 5

Not Familiar 2 15.38 3 42.85 5 25

Regarding the differences between the Turkish and native teachers, it could be

understood that the Turkish teachers (53.84%) are more familiar with the tenets of

Dogme ELT compared to native teachers (28.57%). Moreover, three native teachers

(42.85 %) reported they were not familiar with Dogme ELT; this option was indicated

only by two Turkish teachers (15.38%). It can be concluded that the Turkish teachers

displayed a more knowledgeable profile about the tenets of Dogme ELT as 11 out of the

13 Turkish teachers informed that they are partly or wholly familiar with the tenets,

while only three native teachers stated the same. Additionally, one of the Turkish

teachers commented, “I didn’t realize it so far, but I am familiar with conversation-

driven.”

To gain more insights into the teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme ELT, the

participants were requested to comment or indicate any factor that they might find

controversial about the three key tenets of Dogme ELT reflecting on their teaching

method. However, out of the 20 participants, three Turkish teachers and two native

teachers did not provide an answer or comment on any factor. The rest of the

participants gave insightful comments on the constraints that might appear not only in

their working context but also in the context of Turkey.

a) Conversation-driven: Overall the teachers indicated that Conversation-driven

teaching is a necessity in Turkey considering that the education system is very

exam-oriented and neglects some aspects of language such as speaking. Among

the native teachers, one voiced that Conversation-driven is very similar to Task-

Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and that is western based, so not suitable for

all contexts. It was also pointed out by the same teacher, “the emphasis on

55

learning by doing (activities) pays no attention to the learning of grammar

within the activity.” Both native and Turkish teachers pointed out to be able to

deliver a conversation-driven lesson they need less crowded classrooms, in fact,

English classrooms where they can create an English environment for the

learners, “what I understand about ‘Conversation-driven’ is that a classroom

conversation needs to be more than a chat. And it can be hard to carry on a

conversation with 25 students” (Turkish teacher). Besides this, it was suggested

by the Turkish participants that as Conversation-driven requires not just

speaking but a conversation, it can be difficult for young learners and beginner

levels.

b) Materials-light: Both groups of participants had a consensus on their concern

about materials light tenet as the teacher will spend a lot of time and more

energy preparing materials, but students will do nothing. They also pointed out

the advantage of using coursebooks as it is always ready and time-saving,

especially for exam-preparation years. Moreover, they mentioned it would be

challenging to apply materials-light tenet due to the parents’ expectations.

According to the participants, the parents expect to see the teacher finish the

book with all of the activities in it, as if it is proof that the teacher delivered the

lesson properly.

c) Focusing on emergent-language: The comments on emergent language were

limited; only two Turkish teachers mentioned it. They indicated that the

emergent language works better with young learners. However, the participants

did not comment as much as they did with the other tenets, so it can be inferred

from their limited comments on this tenet that the teachers, in general, are not

very familiar with this proponent and its principles.

d) The participants also generally mentioned their concerns about applicability of

Dogme ELT regarding the context of Turkey. One of the Turkish teachers

commented:

In our education system, teachers or syllabus designers are afraid to use

the Dogme approach in fear of losing control or classroom management.

They prefer ready-made materials since they do not have enough time to

create their materials. They want to make use of the coursebooks without

taking risks. They do not want to let the students have control of the

lesson. They would like to be the master of their classes. (T20)

56

In this comment, the Turkish teachers’ tendency to maintain high-structured

classroom were pointed out; also, another Turkish teacher mentioned that the English

language teachers in Turkey do not have good English proficiency levels, and most of

them are learning the language while teaching it through coursebooks. On the other

hand, a native teacher participant brought another perspective and commented on the

issues related to Dogme ELT in Turkey and learning disabilities:

I think Dogme ELT is a terrific goal, but unfortunately, due to the

training of many of our students, they are not able to realize it

immediately. I think the successful implementation of Dogme ELT, in

many Turkish schools, would require a very intentional gradual release

of responsibility, where students are weaned off materials and scaffolded

toward conversation. I also imagine that this conversation-driven

classroom could be frustrating for beginner and low intermediate

students. I am also concerned about how universal Dogme ELT would

be for learners with special needs or learning disabilities. (T6)

4.3. The Results of the Interview

In the analysis of the data obtained from interviews which were conducted with

the four teacher participants of the study, five subtitles were formed corresponding to

the content of the questions directed to the teachers. The pseudonyms were used to

indicate the responders in order to have the ability of comparing the responses of native

and Turkish teachers. To eliminate any confusion, the abbreviations with the initials of

Native Teacher 1 (NT1), Native Teacher 2 (NT2), Turkish Teacher 1 (TT1), and

Turkish Teacher 2 (TT2) were used to name the participants and to ensure

confidentiality.

4.3.1. The Teachers’ Practices and Views on Ideal English Language Teaching

Questions 1 to 3 (see Appendix 3) sought to gain a better understanding of the

teachers’ practices. Thus, their ideas on the ideal classroom environment for English

acquisition or development, the activities that they engage their students with, and any

further comments were asked to establish to what extent the teachers apply the elements

of Dogme ELT in line with the first research question. Regarding the ideal English

57

classrooms, the participants mentioned the need of English classrooms for full exposure

to the language in order to engage with English and especially as motivation for

speaking activities. NT1 believed such environment would play an important role to

develop a passion in the students towards their materials and ultimately anything related

to the English language as they are in their own area. According to NT2, the ideal

classroom should be where the students are respectful and interact more. Both Turkish

participants pointed out stress-free and comfortable environment enriched with English

paraphernalia around the room, TT1 indicated, “I think it should be where the students

forget that the teacher’s in the classroom and they are learning by themselves with the

exercises given by the teacher. So, it should be student-centered”.

Concerning the activities that the teachers engage their students with, NT1

indicated that she keeps the teacher-talk time limited to about 5 minutes and continues

with group activities. She also informed the interviewer that the students are set in the

routine so that they know how to start group work, what to do when they finish early,

and they have the opportunity to choose what to do in class. Agreeing with the use of a

variety of activities, TT1 mentioned that she carried out at least four or five activities

which attempted to meet the needs of the students who have different characteristics and

interests. She also indicated, “there should always be a speaking activity”. In the same

vein, both TT2 and NT2 highlighted the importance of speaking activities. It could be

understood that all of the participants prepare their teaching materials and activities

according to the needs of their students and focus on speaking activities.

The teachers also commented on their preferred teaching styles, NT1 explained

that they had come to the realization, especially this year, that young learners were

suffering from low-concentration, and consequently how this created the necessity of

conducting different types of activities, mostly technology-free, in the classroom. TT1

also commented that the teaching sometimes is teacher-centered and indicated the

reason as, “…because in Turkish education we [teachers] are used to speaking a lot”

Also she added that the students should be more involved and active with activities.

Also, TT2 pointed out the importance of a teacher-student connection. On the other

hand, NT2 responded more personally and said that she wanted to be more energetic in

the class, and how exhausted she feels sometimes due to the working hours. These

responses highlight the important issues such as the dominant teacher-talk in Turkish

education, and the teachers’ desire to deliver more student-based and free style lessons

as well as their wellbeing.

58

4.3.2. The teachers’ ideas on the Materials Used in this Institution

Questions 5 and 6 were developed specifically to investigate the teachers’

attitudes towards the material-light tenet of Dogme ELT. The responses of the

participants revealed that NT1 and TT1 had the consensus that they were not fully

limited by the book in the school as they can and do change their teaching planning as

they wish. According to NT1, she enjoys having a book as back-up, but not so that she

depends on it all the time. However, she also indicated main coursebooks limits make

teachers to finish every page whether it is related to the level of the learners or not, but

to make parents happy who pay so much money for them.

Also, NT2 indicated that she felt stuck with the books and could not find enough time to

carry out different activities in the classroom. However, according to the school policy,

it is the teacher’s obligation to use the books as main coursebooks. On the other hand,

TT2 said that she did not like using coursebooks, but without them, it would be too

much work for the teacher.

When the changes that the teachers would like to see made to learning and

teaching resources currently in use in the institution were asked. Having an agreement,

NT1 and TT1 indicated the importance of having English classrooms and the benefits of

them, clearly both teachers see an English environment is a resource to develop

language. NT1 also suggested more online systems could be provided to the teachers so

that they can develop their own materials easily. While TT2 mentioned the lack of

communicative aspects in the handouts prepared by the teachers at the beginning of the

school year. NT2 stated that some of the books are not suitable for the level of the

students and that she just skips pages when she feels it is too difficult for the students,

she states “it is waste of time and money, a waste of resources.”

4.3.3. Teachers’ Knowledge of Dogme as an Approach in ELT and Attitudes

Towards Dogme ELT and Its Key Tenets

Dogme ELT related questions were asked to the participants to investigate their

attitudes, firstly, they were asked to indicate if the participants had any knowledge of

Dogme ELT. The participants NT2 and TT2 reported their knowledge as very limited.

As response to the question asking whether they learned about Dogme was through

formal teacher training or informal ways such as research on the internet or journal

articles, all of the participants informed that it was in informal ways. Thus, to gain more

59

reliable results questions 9, 10, and 11 were asked only to the participants who had

enough knowledge.

NT1 and TT1 were asked to briefly describe what Dogme ELT entails in their

opinions on teaching language. NT1 indicated the materials-light tenet of Dogme is

favorable for her by saying, “even if you have a book resource, you can go and produce

your own materials, not being dependent on a book”. On the other hand, TT1 pointed

out conversation-driven tenet and informed that she had been doing Dogme without

knowing it was Dogme. She showed very positive attitudes towards Dogme ELT and

she even said, “we can organize seminars and invite people related to Dogme ELT.

Then, the teachers can be encouraged to implement it more”.

When it was sought to establish the participants’ experiences with Dogme ELT by

asking if they ever used Dogme in the classroom. NT1 reported that she uses Dogme

and her students enjoy the fact that they do not use coursebooks. Also, TT1 stated that

Dogme is actually what the teachers are doing but they are not aware of it.

Question 12 was only asked to the two participants who responded that they had

no sufficient knowledge of Dogme ELT via question 7 and 10 (see Appendix).

According to TT2, she taught eighth graders who were in the exam-preparation year for

high-school entrance exams. Also, NT2 mentioned that she felt that Dogme was not her

style and she needed to have something solid in her hands. It seems that the exams were

the main constraints for the teachers to consider applying Dogme in their classes. Also,

the teachers were not aware of the fact that they could just benefit from some Dogme

moments, instead of implementing Dogme ELT as a whole system of teaching. Thus,

assuming the participant’s knowledge about Dogme ELT was not sufficient to obtain a

reliable answer, the interviewer asked a follow-up question explaining a dogme moment

to NT2. According to her response, she benefited from Dogme moments without

realizing:

Ah! Yes, but I did not know that was Dogme. We had a conversation, I

put them [the students] in a circle, I asked them what they did to help the

environment and they started talking about re-cycling, global warming

and we talked about it for about fifteen minutes.

60

4.3.4. The Constraints and Suggestions

4.3.4.1. The Constraints against the preferred teaching styles

It was asked the responders to indicate what kind of constraints the teachers face

when they attempt to implement their preferred teaching style in this context. All of the

responders had a consensus that the exams and coursebooks were the main obstacles

against applying more student-centered activities since they were expected to finish the

books in time for each unit and prepare the students for exams which are mainly based

on grammar knowledge. NT1 expressed her feelings as “our hands are tied” due to the

roadmap which is a pre-set time schedule for each unit for the coursebooks.

Well, I have worked here for ten years, so in the beginning we had a

coursebook. There is a coursebook, go to class and finish the book.

When you finish it doesn’t matter, but finish it and make sure all the

topics are finished. Ok it was wonderful, because we didn’t have what

we have now, that is, a roadmap, but now at the beginning of the year we

have to say, ok body parts: two weeks. For sports: two weeks. Some

children do not get it in two weeks, and we need more time and I feel

that our hands are tied because we cannot do more of the student-

centered learning that we want to do. - (NT1)

Furthermore, TT1 pointed out the economic aspect of using coursebooks related

to school policy and the publishers who have to sell books. According to the participant,

“Sometimes too many books can make us forget what we are actually teaching”. Also,

she added that the efforts that the teachers put in can vary, “In my opinion, we are not

given a lot by the school, it is up to the teachers to plan and organize. And, I think some

teachers plan and organize more than other teachers”. Also said, “I think our curriculum

is good, we can add and work with it. And we are not actually limited, but we are still

limited by parents”. TT2 commented that unexpected visits of the managers made them

nervous in the classroom, and NT2 mentioned that weekly tests were very ‘time-

stealing’ for her to carry out different activities.

61

4.3.4.2. The Constraints for Implementing Elements of Dogme ELT in Turkey

When it was asked the teachers’ opinions on the feasibility of Dogme ELT in the

context of Turkey. NT1 responded, “No, unfortunately” and indicated that the exams

hold an important place in the education system of Turkey. Also, she explained that the

parents’ understanding of successful language learning was depended on exam results

and how this led grammar-based teaching. The participant said, “The level of the

Department of Education in Turkey compared to what we really want children to be,

there is a big difference. It is very grammar based, and I think we need to move away

from it in some aspects.” NT2 indicated that the implementation of Dogme ELT would

be difficult in Turkey and pointed out the reason as it requires a lot of effort and some

teachers are being ‘lazy’. According to NT2, “It is easier to go to the classroom with the

book and resources.” Also, she suggested that the new generation of teacher can apply

Dogme ELT in their teaching.

On the other hand, TT1 highlighted insightful issues such as the requirements of

the government and the attitudes of teachers towards Dogme ELT as constraints. The

participant suggested training the teachers by pointing out that how difficult Dogme

ELT seems to the teachers at first glance, and how easier it gets in time with experience.

The participant indicated there would be a possibility of implementing Dogme ELT

when the requirements of the government were provided correctly in the curriculum.

It should be our dream as teachers, but we are limited by the

government and the institute. So, it is not easy if you do not train

teachers. Sometimes, you train your teachers, but they are too lazy to do

it in their lessons or work for it. And the teacher has to prepare a lot of

materials before the lesson and has to think about students a lot at the

beginning but after a time it becomes easier. So, it is hard for teachers to

accept it in the beginning. - (TT1)

4.3.4.3. Suggestions

The participants were asked to remark any suggestion about what other

approaches they would fit into language classrooms other than Dogme ELT.

Interestingly, none of the teachers provided any method or approach names, but they

just suggested the activities that generally take place in communicative and student-

62

centered classrooms. This way of thinking of the teachers could be linked to the

principles of Dogme ELT regarding rejecting any methodological structure. Another

important issue was contributed by NT1. According to the participant, “Not only

English teachers, but other branch teachers should start doing more student-centered

activities that would benefit language learning as well”. It can be concluded that in

general the way of teaching, not only for English, is teacher-centered in Turkey and the

lack of student-centered activities such as group-work, pair-work, and projects makes

students confused in English classes, and also makes it difficult for English language

teachers to implement them. Additionally, TT1 pointed out the importance of learners’

enjoyment of their learning by stating, “Games for all ages, not only young learners.

Even when we go to seminars, we play games. We shouldn’t forget this. Learners can

learn easier when they are enjoying themselves”.

4.4. Summary of Findings

In the study, the qualitative data was enriched with the quantitative information

and presented in percentages for easier comprehension. In the questionnaire, 20

participants (13 Turkish and 7 native teachers) were asked to answer open-ended and

multiple-choice questions, later on, four out of 20 volunteer participants were invited to

the interviews (2 Turkish and 2 native teachers). The analyzed data yielded reliable

answers to the research questions of the study.

Concerning the practices and the views of the participants, the findings show

that the majority of the teachers in this institution are experienced in teaching without

materials (see Table 1). According to the teachers, coursebooks and other materials

restrict their teaching method and put them into a frame (see Table 6). More than half of

the teachers indicated that materials like coursebooks were no requirement for language

exposure. Moreover, some teachers were concerned about the fact that teaching without

coursebooks would give rise to a lack of structure in their teaching methods. According

to them, coursebooks provide them with a sense of security and also an equal learning

opportunity for the students. However, it should be noted that the majority believed

coursebooks affect their teaching method while few teachers indicated that if the teacher

is experienced, they could adapt the coursebooks to their teaching without an influence.

In their practices, the teachers feel obligated to finish every page of the

coursebook to meet the expectations of parents who pay high amounts of money to

63

these imported materials. The national exams, school, and government policies were

found the main reasons for the teacher to apply the guidance of a coursebook and other

materials. Nevertheless, it was pointed out that they often sweep away the coursebooks

and try to add more student-centered and speaking activities at the end of the lessons to

prosper the communication skills of the students. Besides, all of the participants

acknowledged that speaking lessons would be suitable to teach without materials (see

Table 2). According to the results obtained, it seems that the Turkish teachers mostly

prefer teaching receptive skills (listening, reading) and native teachers prefer teaching

grammar, discourse, reading and writing with a guidance of a coursebook.

From the activities which the teachers indicated to engage their learners with, it

can be concluded that they often apply various modern and desirable activities for a

communicative approach like Dogme (see Table 8&11). Similarly, the teachers’

practices in the classroom seem relevant to a Dogme classroom (see Table 12),

however, only a few teachers indicated that they consciously follow Dogme ELT (see

Table 13). The teachers mainly had the knowledge of Dogme ELT; yet, it could be seen

from the teachers’ descriptions of Dogme that their knowledge was not very well-

established. In fact, some of them were not aware of the principles of Dogme even

though they practically adhere to them in the classroom.

The results show that most of the teachers had a limited knowledge about

Dogme ELT as an approach in ELT and the attitudes of the teachers towards Dogme

ELT and its key tenets appeared positive from the data. Regarding the tenets, more than

half of the participants were familiar with at least one of the tenets. While the

Conversation-driven and the Materials-light tenets were highlighted often, only two

Turkish teachers pointed out the Focusing on emergent language tenet. The teachers

had a consensus on the advantages of Conversation-driven tenet, but it was also

identified as challenging since it requires more than basic speaking activities. On the

other hand, about the Materials-light, different answers were reported. For instance,

even though most of the participants thought that the coursebooks were restrictive and

not essential for effective language teaching, some of them stated that this tenet would

not be possible and applicable as the teachers have a tendency to maintain controlled

teaching in Turkey. For the Focusing on emergent-language tenet, from the limited

comments on this tenet, it can be inferred that the teachers, in general, were not very

familiar with this proponent and its applications. Thus, none of the participants stated

anything related to their attitudes.

64

The differences between native and Turkish teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme

ELT were investigated throughout the study. It was found out that the teachers provided

a variety of student-centered enjoyable and entertaining activities. Both groups of the

teachers made mention of the restrictiveness of materials and exam-oriented education

system to perform their preferred activities. Thus, it can be concluded that both groups

have positive attitudes towards the practices of Dogme principles. However, from the

teachers’ descriptions of Dogme, it can also be understood that the Turkish teachers

were more updated and hopeful regarding the applicability of Dogme ELT.

Moreover, when we interpret the data obtained from the interviews, native

participants believed that the feasibility of Dogme ELT into the English education in

Turkey was not promising while the Turkish participants drew a bit more open-minded

profile compared to their native colleagues. For instance, one Turkish participant

indicated that Dogme ELT could be successfully adapted to their teaching when the

requirements of the government were met; the teachers were trained accordingly. She

also pointed out that teachers should become more committed and knowledgeable about

innovations in English Language Teaching. Nevertheless, it is difficult to say that there

is a remarkable difference between the groups, as from each group, there were

participants, familiar with Dogme ELT and already applying it with satisfaction, and the

others who had minimal knowledge about Dogme ELT and perceived it as only

‘teaching without coursebooks.’

The constraints against the application of Dogme ELT in Turkey were

highlighted by the participants throughout the study. Mostly the exams were found as

the primary constraint for the teachers to apply a communicative approach like Dogme.

According to them, in Turkey, as the national exams fundamentally measure grammar

and vocabulary knowledge of the students, the communicative aspect of the language is

often neglected in language teaching, and thus, exam-oriented teaching is dominance.

They believed that in such exam-oriented teaching, the application of Dogme ELT

would be very challenging. Also, the over-dependency on the coursebook and their

restrictiveness in the teachers’ preferred teaching activities play important role as

constraints. As the teachers inferred, in general the parents want their children to be

successful in the exams, and they often expect the coursebooks to be finished. In other

ways, finishing the coursebook implies that the teacher delivered the lesson adequately

as the traditionalist expectations of the parents. Overall from the data obtained, it could

be concluded that the teachers feel restricted by external forces such as the

65

governments’ policies, school policies, traditionalist expectations of the parents, and the

coursebooks which are also written by someone out of the classroom.

Furthermore, the teachers also mentioned some teacher-based constraints.

According to the participants, some teachers do not have a good proficiency level of

English especially speaking skills, and they still are learning while teaching with the

guidance of the coursebooks. Another teacher-based constraint was that some teachers’

becoming less devoted than the others. Long working hours and stressful supervisor

checks were also highlighted as constraints. Nevertheless, it was stated that Dogme is

misunderstood as ‘overwhelming’ and ‘more work’ for the teachers, in fact, in time it

gets easier and contributes both to the teacher and the students more.

66

CHAPTER V

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1. Introduction

This study was set out to explore Dogme ELT in the context of Turkey

regarding teacher practices, attitudes, and the constraints against the application of it.

The differences between the native and non-native teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme

ELT were also included. The study was conducted in a private school which encourages

Dogme teaching in its language program. The context of the study is, therefore, valuable

as it is hard to find. As the first study investigating Dogme ELT in such a Turkish

school, it aimed to shed light on Dogme ELT with the participation of native and non-

native teachers (Turkish) who are part of the context. In this chapter, the findings on the

issues above are discussed in detail, and the conclusions have come with implications,

recommendations, and limitations of the study.

5.1.1. The extent that the teachers apply elements of Dogme ELT.

In response to the first research question of the study, the teachers’ practices and

views of ideal English language teaching were investigated to establish what extent the

teachers apply elements of Dogme. The findings revealed that the aspects of Dogme

ELT embedded in the teachers’ practices and that they shared similar ideas with a

Dogme teacher. Most of the participants stated that they do or have the desire to do

various student-centered activities such as pair-works, groups-works, task, and project-

based teaching, which can be associated with Dogme ELT. Also, the findings showed

that the teachers mostly had the desire to put their personalized teaching styles/methods

in practice, in other words, their theory of practice without being restricted by external

forces like coursebooks, school, and government policies. As Kumaravadivelu (2001)

stated, “No theory of practice can be useful and useable unless it is generated through

practice” (p. 541). Thus, considering with regard to the practicality framework of

Kumaravadivelu, it can be understood that Dogme is valid and practical in this specific

context.

67

Furthermore, according to the findings, teachers’ practices of the elements of

Dogme ELT vary to some extent as a result of each teacher’s individual critical

appraisal. The teachers mentioned that they often use Dogme often to fulfill the lack of

communicative aspects of language given in the books and materials by planning

different activities and appending them at the end of their lessons. This understanding of

Dogme teaching of the teachers can lead us to think that the teachers do Dogme as they

find an opportunity to meet the needs of their learners, not wholly.

As Meddings and Thornbury (2003) suggested, there are several levels and ways

of applying Dogme in the practice of teaching, from Dogme-light to Dogme-heavy.

Likewise, in this study, the teachers practices of Dogme appear mostly in an extent that

can be in accordance with two types of Dogme-light: (a) Punk-Dogme when you create

the materials of lessons instead of using published materials and (b) Talk-Dogme when

you take time off the coursebooks to trigger conversation in the class based on the needs

of the learners. Thus, we can understand that the application of the elements of Dogme

ELT is valid in this specific context. However, some constraints, such as delivering

exam preparation courses and Ministry of Education (MEB) required lessons (addressed

in the constraints section of this chapter) affect the teachers’ practices and ultimately

limit them to a certain extent.

In her review on Dogme ELT in the context of Turkey, Akca (2012) suggested a

private school to be more “proactive” than a public school, “in terms of trying to

understand and to engage with such a radical communicative approach to teaching

English as Dogme”. Even though this might be considered one of the reasons why the

teachers have interiorized Dogme related teaching elements in this private school, it is

beyond the scope of this study to report interrelationship between public and private

schools and generate the result to the whole context of Turkey.

An interesting finding of the study was that some teachers realized that they do

Dogme teaching without knowing. This reaction of the teachers, however, is not

unheard; in fact, similar reactions have echoed on the online form of Dogme ELT

(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/) from the teachers who participate from all

around the world mentioned that they realized what they do in the classroom was

actually called as Dogme teaching (Thornbury, 2005; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009).

To explain, Thornbury (2005) put forward the sharing characteristics of Dogme ELT

and another alternative, progressive, critical and humanistic educational theories and

approaches that have been presented in the chapter of the literature review of this paper.

68

According to Thornbury (2011b), Dogme ELT provides an alternative way to the

approaches and methods which the teachers might feel familiar, such as Task-Based

Language Teaching and Content-Based Language Teaching. As Hall (2011) defined,

“Dogme is both a way of teaching and overt an attitude to teaching” (p. 40). Thus, given

Dogme ELT as a communicative approach that enables the teachers to perform their

preferred teaching without being restricted, it may be said that Dogme ELT can comply

with the teachers’ opinions of ideal English teaching and can be found applicable in the

context concerning the responses of the teacher participants.

5.1.2. The Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Dogme ELT and Its Key Tenets.

As a response to the second research question of the study, the attitudes of the

teachers towards Dogme ELT were explored throughout the study. Overall, the positive

attitude was recorded from the data. The result is similar to the study of Coskun (2016),

investigating teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme ELT at tertiary level and recorded

positive attitudes of the teachers in the context of Turkey.

Regarding the key tenets, it can be understood that the teachers were mostly

familiar with Conversation-driven and Materials-light tenets. When the Conversation-

driven tenet was concerned, the teachers showed positive attitudes concerning its

necessity in their teaching. However, the teachers also indicated that conducting a

Conversation-driven lesson would be challenging with low-proficiency levels; this

difficulty was also suggested in the previous studies (Coskun, 2016; Bryndal, 2014). On

the other hand, opposing to the results of the previous study (Coskun, 2016), the

participants found the Materials-light tenet not promising in the context of Turkey even

though the majority mentioned the coursebooks ‘restrictive’ and ‘not a requirement for

effective language teaching’. Also, some of the teachers even indicated that they did not

use coursebooks at all while only the minority showed dependency on the coursebooks.

It seems that in general, the teachers had complex ideas about the Materials-light tenet.

Thus, the Balanced Teaching model of Sketchley (2012), as also Coskun (2016)

suggested, can be advantageous for the teachers who are unclear about teaching English

in Dogme way. Regarding the last tenet, Focusing on emergent language, the teachers

attitudes could not be recorded as they had very limited knowledge about it and rarely

mentioned.

69

To conclude, the teachers mostly have positive attitudes towards Dogme ELT;

however, there is a lack of understanding regarding the principles and implementations

of Dogme ELT. Training the teachers in this respect and offering the Balanced Teaching

(Sketchley 2012) for the beginning could be beneficial. It should also be noted that the

results were concluded according to the responses of the teachers to the questionnaire

and the interviews, not based on their actual practices of teaching via classroom

observations.

5.1.3. The constraints that the teachers face against the applications of Dogme ELT.

Concerning the third research question, the constraints against the application of

Dogme ELT in Turkey were sought. According to the findings, the exam-oriented

education system was found as the main constraint in this context against the applicatio

n of Dogme. While external factors like school policies, parents' expectations were

mentioned; some constraints were referred to the teachers such as the tendency to

maintain a high-structured classroom environment, having a low-proficiency level of

English regarding communicative skills, committing less than other colleagues. Overall,

the suggested constraints appear similar to what Akca (2012) proposed, “exam pressure,

traditionalist expectations about course delivery, design and the use of materials; and

teachers whose own communicative skills in English may fall some way short of their

grammatical and lexical competence.” What is interesting is that they are on the same

line with the results of the study of British Council and TEPAV (2013) which submitted

a list of hindering factors from implementing a communicative approach. This can lead

us to think these constraints work not only against Dogme ELT but also other similar

communicative approaches.

In 2012, Xeri conducted a study investigating Dogme ELT in the mainstream of

the exam-preparation course; as a result, he found out that Dogme teaching was

adaptable to this context as well as having the potential to empower the teacher to elicit

and practice exam-required structures and real language contexts at the same time.

Following the results of Xeri’s study (2012), we can infer that the teachers of the

present situation need to be more updated with the adaptability of Dogme into specific

purposes.

70

When considering the teachers’ answers on the general tendency on the

controlled-classrooms and structured teaching with regard to the teacher-generated

constraints, it may be said that it is natural that the teachers to carry the reflection of the

exam-oriented, high-structured education system in their practices where they have

developed as a teacher. As Kumaravadivelu suggested, “The experiences participants

bring to the pedagogical setting are shaped not just by the learning/teaching episodes

that they encountered in the past, but also by the broader social, economic, and political

environment in which they have grown up” (2001, p. 543). Hence, the education system,

on the first hand, needs to empower the teachers to take action for implementing their

own preferred teaching, perhaps Dogme ELT. About the traditionalist expectations of

the parents as a constraint, it should be noted that the parents concern about the future of

their children and discern English learning to get a better job by succeeding at language

proficiency exams, not to communicate with it (TEPAV project group, 2014). Thus, to

promote the possibility of Dogme ELT in this context, parents, teachers, policymakers,

school managers need to be informed with different aspects of language learning and

teaching.

5.1.4. The differences between the native and non-native teachers regarding their

attitudes towards Dogme ELT.

In parallel to the fourth research question, the differences between the native and

Turkish teachers regarding their attitudes were investigated through the teachers’

practices and views of language teaching. To illustrate the differences between the

attitudes of the teachers, the findings of the study were presented under native and non-

native groups along with overall results. From the results, very little or no distinction

between the native and the Turkish participants’ attitudes toward Dogme ELT could be

concluded. This result can comply with what Meddings and Thornbury advocated in

their books, Unplugged Teaching (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009). According to them,

although it was presumed that only native teachers could feel comfortable and non-

native teachers would be insufficient regarding their communicative skills in this

unplanned way of teaching, this was not a case for Dogme teaching. They pointed out

comments of the teachers coming from all around the world on the Dogme online group

and their own experiences as non-native teachers believing that with the globalization of

English, the application of Dogme will be convenient as the native/non-native

71

distinction becoming “incidental, even trivial” in the new paradigm shift (Meddings &

Thornbury, 2009, p. 85).

Similarly, this study revealed both groups of the teachers hold similar attitudes,

and only a minor difference was that the Turkish participants showed more positive

attitudes towards Dogme ELT and its key tenets with the hope that it would benefit both

the teachers and the student. This backdrop might be reasoned from their becoming

more knowledgeable about Dogme ELT, which ultimately eliminates the notorious

misunderstandings of it. However, it is not in the scope of the study to explain these

differences between the native and non-native teachers as their educational background

and relativeness to English Language Teaching were not investigated.

5.2. Implications of the study

Dogme ELT has been a radical movement with its principles embracing

communicative, humanistic, modern approaches, and serving as an alternative way for

the teachers to apply their preferred teaching styles. However, the paucity of research on

this debated approach requires research to eliminate its misinterpretations and to

validate the approach in the context. In this sense, this pioneering study was conducted

in a Dogme supportive school with native and non-native teachers of primary and

middle school and aimed to shed light on Dogme ELT. The results of the study

portrayed that the teachers mostly adhere to the principles of Dogme ELT practically,

but often they feel limited by coursebooks, school and government policies, and

traditionalist expectations of parents.

Based on the findings of the study, it was revealed that most of the teachers

showed positive attitudes towards Dogme ELT, and especially non-native, Turkish,

teachers confirmed that conversation-driven and materials-light principles would bring a

change in the education system, however, the participants were not fully aware of

theoretical backgrounds and principles of Dogme ELT detailed. While the differences

between the native and Turkish participants’ attitudes were found incidental, the

Turkish participants had a more knowledgeable profile about Dogme ELT and were

more optimistic about its applicability.

The constraints suggested hindering the applicability of Dogme, appear valid

for any other communicative approach, as discussed in this paper. Thus, understanding

these constraints could help the understanding of English teaching change direction to a

72

more radical communicative approach like Dogme ELT. Considering the downtrend in

the English proficiency level of Turkey and the deficiencies of the current English

language teaching approaches and methods embedded in the education system of

Turkey, Dogme teaching can be found functional in the context.

As the study described, Dogme ELT is practical in the context; however, the

teachers should be trained and be more informed with this approach and its applicability.

This study, accordingly, by trying to fulfill the need for research hoped to invite the

teachers, policymakers and school directors to rethink of Dogme ELT for a better

language learning experience and attempted to provide data on Dogme teaching for

future research.

5.3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research

Just like any other study, this study also has its limitations. Firstly, the teachers’

demographic information and educational background were not included in the study.

Investigating these variables could bring a different perspective of the teachers’ answers

and ultimately a better understanding of Dogme ELT and its key tenets.

Secondly, there is little prior research on Dogme ELT and its tenets to help lay the

groundwork for understanding the research problem being investigated in the scope of

this study. As the first study conducted in a school at primary and middle school levels,

which encourages principles of Dogme ELT, this, therefore, is a pioneering attempt to

understand Dogme ELT and its key tenets in the context of Turkey. It should be noted

that this gap in the literature can be an opportunity for new research.

Also, the researcher had to collect the data only with questionnaires and

interviews. However, in order to get more reliable results, a classroom observation is

encouraged for future research. The study only included primary and middle school

teachers. In a future study, researching high school can benefit from spreading sampling

to the students and also investigating their attitudes towards Dogme ELT. Lastly,

although the study, by its nature, has no attempt to generalize the results to the whole

context of Turkey, a broader study can help raise awareness among the teachers, show

them a different way to teach and contribute to the development of English Language

Teaching.

73

6. REFERENCES

Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod Discourse and Practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 641-652.

doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00152.x

Akca, C. (2012). Dogme Unplugged. In Institute of Language and Communication

Studies (ILCS) (Eds), International Symposium on Language and

Communication: Research Trends and Challenges – Proceedings Book (pp.

1743-1756). Erzurum: Mega Press.

Alami, S. A. (2015). Research within the Field of Applied Linguistics: Points to

Consider. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(7), 1330-1335. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0507.03

Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The Developing Language Learner: An introduction

to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Allwright, R. L. (1991). The death of the method (Working Paper #10). The Exploratory

Practice Centre, The University of Lancaster, England. (PDF) Understanding

Language Teaching From Method to Postmethod. Retrieved From

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324641739_Understanding_Language

_Teaching_From_Method_to_Postmethod [accessed May 15 2019].

Anthony, Edward M. (1963). Approach, Method, and Technique. English Learning 17,

63-67. An Arbor: University of Michigan Press

Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning Another Language through Actions. The Complete

Teacher’s Guide Book (6th ed.). Los Gatos: Sky Oaks Productions, Inc.

Baker, T.L. (1994). Doing Social research, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Banegas, D. L. (2012). Teaching Unplugged: Is Dogme a renovation or a remake? Paper

presented at Share Convention. Buenos Aires, 2012. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/2319484/Teaching_unplugged_Is_Dogme_an_innov

ation_or_a_remake

Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York: Free

Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

British Council & TEPAV. (2014). Turkey National Needs Assessment of State School

English Language Teaching.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall Regents.

74

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle and Interactive Approach to language

pedagogy. New York: Longman Inc.

Bryndal, M. (2014). Dogme ELT. Developing Teachers. Retrieved From

http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/dogme1_malgorzata.ht

m

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities, and

Language Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91(Focus Issue), 923-939.

Cetinkaya, Y. B. (2005). Turkish college students' willingness to communicate in

English as a foreign language (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), The Ohio

State University. Retrieved May 16, 2019 from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331639216_Factors_Affecting_EFL_S

tudents'_

Willingness_to_Communicate_in_Speaking_Classes_at_the_Vietnamese_Tertia

ry_Level

Chomsky, Noam, 1966, Cartesian Linguistics, New York: Harper and Row.

Coşkun, A. (2016). Dogme ELT: What do teachers and students think? International

Journal Of Research Studies In Language Learning. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1445

Dogancay-Aktuna, Seran. 1998. The Spread of English in Turkey and its Current

Sociolinguistic Profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,

19, 23-39. Doi: 10.1080/01434639808666340

Dogme 95 - Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95

Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Ghazal, S. & Singh, S. (2014). Teaching unplugged: Applications of Dogme ELT in

India. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 2(1).

Patna, India.

Glass, G. V & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology,

2nd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. New York:

Routledge.

Işık, A. (2008). Yabancı Dil Eğitimimizdeki Yanlışlar Nereden Kaynaklanıyor?. Journal

of Language and Linguistic Studies. 4(2), 15-26.

75

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach. Language Acquisition

in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon and Alemany.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for

second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587197

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a Postmethod Pedagody. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4),

537-560.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Forum: critical language pedagogy: A postmethod

perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00317.x

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to

postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lampert, V. A. (2012). Qualitative Descriptive Research: An Acceptable Design.

Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research 16(4).

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. M. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford [england:

Oxford University Press.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research, (3rd ed).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using Numbers in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry,

16(6), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740

McLean, A. C. (2011). Particularity, practicality and possibility: an investigation into

the awareness and use of communicative language teaching methodology in a

college of higher education in Oman (Master’s thesis). University of South

Africa, South Africa.

Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2003). Dogme still able to divide ELT. Guardian News

and Media Limited.

Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English

Language Teaching. Peaslake UK: Delta.

Morley, J., Wallace, B.R., Selinker, L., & Woods, D. (1984). ELS Theory and The Fries

Legacy. Japan Association of Language Teachers Journal (Jalt). 6(2), 171-208,

Okinawa. Retrieved From https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/jj-6.2-

art3.pdf

76

Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language

teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of

language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587534

Perry, J. (2012). Teaching Unplugged: The Revitalization Of Elt? Retrieved From

http://www.theeltexchange.com/jason/Research%20Essay%20Final%20-

%20Jason%20Parry

Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.

Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586897

Rahul, D. R. (2015). A Study on Dogme ELT. International Journal of English

Language, Literature. 2(4), 140-143. Retrieved From

http://www.ijelr.in/2.4.15/140-143%20RAHUL%20D%20R.pdf

Rebuffet-Broadus, C., & Wright, J. (2014). Experimental Practice in ELT: A walk on

the wild side. The Round.

Renshaw, J. (2010). The Trouble with Teaching Unplugged [Blog post]. Retrieved 6

May, 2019 From

http://jasonrenshaw.typepad.com/jason_renshaws_web_log/2010/03/the-trouble-

with-teaching-unplugged.html

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching

(2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sarıçoban, G. & Sarıçoban, A. (2012). Atatürk and the history of foreign language

education. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(1), 24-49.

Sasidharan, P. R. (2014). DOGME ELT: A method for enhancing conversational

communication among engineering students. IOSR Journal of Humanities and

Social Science, 19(7), 33-35. Jerusalem College of Engineering. Chennai, India.

Schreiber, J. B. (2008). Descriptive statistics. In L. M, Given (Ed.), The SAGE

encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 209-212). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909

Sharma, P.B. (2014). Dogme ELT: A Tool to Promote General Communicative

Competence International journal of English: literature, language & skills. 3(3),

184-187

77

Siham, B. (2013). Dogme English Language Teaching: A Fairy Tale Method in the

Algerian School?(Unpublished MA dissertation). Larbi Ben M'Hidi University.

Retrieved From

http://bib.univoeb.dz:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2396/1/Memoire.pdf

Sketchley, M. (2012). An investigation into teacher and student attitudes of the key

tenets of Dogme ELT (MA dissertation. Retrieved from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83684117/Dogme-ELT-Dissertation-Final-Version.

Spiro, J. (2013). Changing methodologies in TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Swain, M. (2008). Introduction to Leo van Lier. Introduction to van Lier. The Modern

Language Journal, 92(1), 3-5.

Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: current theoretical

perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199-210. Doi:

10.1080/09588221.2010.538701

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching.

ELT Journal, 50(1). Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. (2000). A Dogma for EFL. IATEFL Issues, 153(2). Retrieved from

http://www.scottthornbury.com/articles.html

Thornbury, S. (2013). Leo Van Lier. Retrieved from

https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/tag/leo-van-lier/

Thornbury, S. (2005). Dogme: Dancing in the dark? Folio, 9(2), 3-5.

Thornbury, S. (2006). An A to Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan.

Thornbury, S. (2009a). D is for Drill. Retrieved May 16, 2019 From

https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/d-is-for-drills/

Thornbury, S. (2009b). Methods, post-method, and métodos. Retrieved from

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/methods-post-method-métodos

Thornbury, S. (2009c). K is for Krashen. Retrieved May 16, 2019 from

https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/k-is-for-krashen/

Thornbury, S. (2010a). RE: Why I teach unplugged but don’t do Dogme. [Web Log

Comment]. Retrieved from

http://jasonrenshaw.typepad.com/jason_renshaws_web_log/2010/10/whyi-teach-

unplugged-but-dont-do-dogme.html.

Thornbury, S. (Video Lecture) (2010b). The secret history of methods: A discussion

with Scott Thornbury. [Web]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/L2q9B2BEV2U.

78

Thornbury, S. (2011a) C is for Conversation

Thornbury, S. (2011b). T is for Task Based Learning. Retrieved May 16, 2019 from

https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/t-is-for-task-based-learning/

Thornbury, S. (2011c). T is for Technology. Retrieved May 16, 2019 from

https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/t-is-for-technology/

Thornbury, S. (2013). Dogme: hype, evolution or intelligent design?. The Language

Teacher, 37(4).

Thornbury, S. (2015). C is for CLT. Retrieved May 16, 2019 from

https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/c-is-for-clt/

Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: towards anecological perspective on

language teaching. System 31, 1-12.

Thurmond, V. A. (2001), The Point of Triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,

33: 253–258. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00253.x

Warschauer, M. (2000). The Changing Global Economy and the Future of English

Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-536. doi:10.2307/3587741

Wikipedia. (2012, November 25). Dogme language teaching. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_language_teaching.

Worth, A. (2012). A Dogme based approach from the learners’ perspective. The Journal

of Kanda University of International Studies, 24, 77-99.

Xerri, D. (2012). Experimenting with Dogme in a mainstream ESL context. English

Language Teaching, 5(9), 59-65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p59

Van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In

Kramsch, C. (Ed.), Language Acquisition and Second Language Socialization.

Ecological Perspectives. (p. 140-164). New York: Continuum.

Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language leaning: A sociocultural

perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum.Awareness, Autonomy and

Authenticity. London: Longman.

Vickers, H. (2009, March 15). Dogme 2.0. What ‘Teaching 2.0’ can learn from Dogme

ELT [Web blog message]. Retrieved from

http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/dogme- elt- web20-dogme20/

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

79

7. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Ethics Committee Approval

80

81

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

Dear Colleague,

This questionnaire forms part of a MA study in ELT (English Language

Teaching) which investigates teachers’ attitudes towards Dogme ELT. Could you please

assist by answering the following questions? Participants will remain anonymous.

Please feel free to write in Turkish or in English. Thank you.

Please indicate: Native / Turkish English Teacher

1. Do you ever teach a lesson without any material, hand-outs or worksheets?

Yes / No

2. Which of the following lessons would you consider teaching without

materials:

Grammar

Vocabulary

Pronunciation

Discourse

Speaking

Listening

Reading

Writing

Other (please specify)

3. Which of the following reasons reflect why you sometimes do NOT use

materials or a coursebook: (Tick ONE)

It happens spontaneously in class

I do this to generate interest in the lesson

I do this mainly to encourage students to speak

To add variety or surprise for students during the lesson

Students could lead the lesson in an interesting way

Other (please specify)

82

4. Do you think that it is important to teach English by following a

coursebook? Please briefly explain why you think this is important or why not.

Answer:

5. How would/do you feel teaching without material, hand-outs or worksheets?

6. How often do you use a coursebook during a class? (Tick ONE)

Never

Once a week

Twice a week

Three times a week

Four times a week

Always

Other (please specify)

7. Do you find the use of a coursebook restrictive in class? Yes / No

8. Describe how you would teach students a lesson without the aid of a

coursebook, hand-outs or materials?

Answer:

9. Do the course textbooks and teaching resource materials affect your teaching

methodology in any way? Please explain. Answer:

83

10. Do you think that language exposure via various sources, brought by the

teachers, such as coursebooks, handout etc. is required in effective language teaching?

Please clarify your answer. Answer:

11. How would you encourage a classroom environment conducive for

interactive communication skills of learners?

Answer:

12. Do you in class: (Tick ONE)

Allow learners to choose what materials will be covered

Prepare lessons based upon the current needs of your learners

Provide learners the opportunity to create their own material for other learners

Respond to learners’ requests for assistance with vocabulary and grammar

Encourage learners to incorporate their own native language and culture

Other (please specify)

13. Please describe Dogme ELT in your own words

Answer:

84

14 Do you consciously follow Dogme ELT?

Answer:

15 Are you familiar with the following key proponents of Dogme ELT?

1. Convesation-driven: The first and core tenet of Dogme ELT which advocates

value on communication that promotes social interaction via real-life conversations.

Conversat on s the "fundamental and un versal form of language" and so s cons dered

to be "language at work" (Medd ngs & Thornbury, 2009).

2. Materials-light: The second tenet considers that in language teaching rather

than published materials, student-produced materials should be used. It rejects

dependency on the materials and empowers the teachers with an opportunity to use a

variety of activities in their preferred teaching.

3. Focusing on emergent language: learning is learner initiated and language

emerges in second language learning situations via engagement of learners with each

other by talking and by being responded by others and scaffolded by teacher.

Answer:

16 In the space below please provide comments or indicate any factors that you

may find controversy with the three key proponents of Dogme ELT (material-light,

conversation- driven, emergent language) regarding your teaching methods.

Answer:

85

Appendix 3: List of Questions for Semi Structured Interview

1. Would you explain what you believe to be the ideal classroom environment for

English language acquisition/development? By classroom environment I mean

teaching and learning related issues such as types of activities, the nature of

interaction, teacher/learner role.

2. Would you please describe the type of activities you normally engage the students

with in the classroom?

3. Do you have further comment to make about your preferred teaching style/s?

4. What kind of organizational constraints have you experienced in this

working context and how do these constraints affect your teaching activities?

5. What is your opinion of the learning and teaching materials used in this institution?

6. Are there any changes you would like to see made to the teaching and learning

resources currently in use in this institution?

7. Do you have any knowledge of Dogme ELT?

8. If your answer to the above question was yes then please describe how you learned

about Dogme; whether it was through formal teacher training or informal means

such as research on the internet or journal articles

9. (If the answer is yes), could you briefly describe what this approach entails in your

opinion?

10. (If the answer is yes), do you ever do Dogme in the classroom?

11. (If yes), do you think it is feasible to employ this approach in the context of

Turkey?

12. If you are not using Dogme, what are the particular reasons for not using Dogme in

your classrooms?

13. What other approaches would you suggest to be used in language classrooms other

than Dogme?

86

Appendix 4: Consent-Form

Interview Consent Form

1. I agree to be interviewed for the purposes of the student assignment.

2. The purpose and nature of the interview has been explained to me by the interviewer.

3. I agree that the interview may be electronically recorded.

4. Choose a), b) or c)

a) I agree that my name may be used for the purposes of the research assignment

only and not for publication.

OR

b) I understand that the student may wish to pursue publication at a later date and

my name may be used.

OR

c) I do not wish my name to be used or cited, or my identity otherwise disclosed in the

assignment.

NAME OF INTERVIEWEE:

SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWEE:

DATE:

5. I have explained the project and the implications of being interviewed to the

interviewee and I believe that the consent is informed and that he/she understands the

implication of participation.

NAME OF INTERVIEWER:

SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWER:

DATE:

87

Appendix 5: Permission to Conduct the Questionnaires

88

Appendix 6: Request Letter for Permission

89

8. CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL DETAILS

Name-Surname: Ayşe Dilay EROĞLU

Date of Birth: 03/10/1994

Place of Birth: Diyarbakır

Contact Information: E-mail: dilayeroglu@gmail.com

EDUCATION

2017-2019: Çağ University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of English

Language Teaching, Mersin. (MA)

2015-2016: Dalarna University (Sweden) Erasmus Student Exchange Program.

Foreign Languages Teaching (Undergraduate studies).

2012-2016: Çukurova University, Faculty of Education, Department of English

Language Teaching. (BA)

2008-2012: Yüreğir Halıcılar Anatolian Highschool, Adana.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES

2016 (November)- 2019: English Language Teacher, Private Gündoğdu College,

Adana.

2016-Summer: Erasmus+ Traineship Program, Teaching Assistant in Docklands

Academy Language School, London, United Kingdom.