Investigating Student Attitudes to a DogmeApproach to IELTS Essay Writing

journal orpublication title

Journal of policy studies

number 56page range 39-44year 2018-03-20URL http://hdl.handle.net/10236/00026786

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Kwansei Gakuin University Repository

Theory & Practice of Dogme ELT

Dogme is a well-known approach to language teaching proposed by Thornbury (2000) that rejects textbooks, which, he argues, fail to take into account individual learners’ interests, arguing they promote a pre-determined, itemised grammar syllabus. He argued that the promote a thinly disguised, item-ized, structural syllabi, or as he termed it ‘grammar McNuggets’ (Meddings & Thornbury, 2001), or Obsessive Grammar Syndrome (Thornbury 2000), which assumes that language can be acquired in step by step linear way, a notion that has been widely challenged (e.g. Larson-Freeman, 2003). Language learning is a far more complex phenomenon that can include regressions, rapid leaps forward, regressions and concurrent progress with a number of aspects of the language at any one time, operating as a Complex Adaptive System (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009).

Similarly, Thornbury asser ted that genuine communication, which focuses on meaning and the content for which is the lives of the learner’s themselves, had been relegated to the bookends of a

lesson, at the expense of working through the course-book, but he argued that this communication should be central to the language class (Thornbury, 2000). He thus called for a Vow of Chastity in ELT teaching which focuses on the localized, specific needs of and interactions between the teacher and learners in a particular classroom in which talk and meaning is constructed cooperatively and language evolves out of the interaction between those present in the room (Ibid). Thus, in 2009, the central tenets of Dogme were formalized the main three of which are that it is conversation driven, materials light, and focuses on emergent language (Ibid, 8).

Conversation driven

One of the main stated advantages of conversa-tion and interaction is that learners can receive feed-back on their output from more competent peers or the teacher. This can either be in the form of non-comprehension by the interlocutor, or through refor-mulation, rewording an incorrect utterance with a correct one, or direct correction. This is also consis-tent with the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2000) which

Investigating Student Attitudes to a Dogme Approach to IELTS Essay Writing

ト ー マ ス・ス ト ー ン ズThomas Stones

Dogme ELT is an approach to pedagogy that has attracted much controversy, despite some of its core principles having much currency in the field, especially its commitment to learner centredness and collaborative learning. This paper reports the learner view on such an approach applied to IELTS writing. A lesson was delivered utilising a Dogme approach to essay writing and learners’ views on it collected through a self-completion questionnaire with qualitative and quantitative items. The delivery of the lesson and the learners' reac-tions to it are discussed as are implications for effective implementation of this approach.

Key Words : Dogme ELT, Learner-Generated Language, Collaborative Writing

論文（Article）

posits that it is necessary for learners to produce language in order to acquire certain features of the language. Similarly, the need to produce language also leads learners to recognise the limitations of their abilities and thus drives learning. In addition, if content is selected, or topicalised, by the learners it will be immediately and obviously relevant to them, and this is said to aid acquisition (Ellis, 1992) as is true of genuine conversation. The social nature of learning is also emphasised as a key component of language acquisition.

Materials Light

Materials light, as a concept, puts emphasis on the interactions of the individuals present in the room, and rejects the a-priori selection of topics without consultation or knowledge of those that would use the text. Dogme, however, is ‘materials light not Materials free’ (Meddings, 2010), so does not completely reject texts but does support the type of texts that encourage interaction or provide a mean-ingful context for language focus (Thornbury, 2005) and relevant to local issues and the students’ lives.

Emergent language

Emergent Grammar (Hopper, 1998) is when linguistic code, or ‘grammar’ emerges from the need to communicate and not the reverse. Therefore, the teaching of grammar should not determine the nature of communication (Thornbury & Meddings, 2009). Dogme aims to provide the conditions for this emer-gence through the provision of the need to communi-cate, rather than grammar functions determining the nature of communication, which is typical of most course books. It is the role of the teacher to highlight and upgrade forms as they emerge from conversa-tion; also known as Focus on Form (Long, 1991).

Dogme & Writing

Despite the stated focus on and prominence of conversation, Dogme is entirely compatible with writ ten production. Teaching Unplugged itself suggests a number of written activities (2009: pp 59, 65, 68) and proponents often highlight or allude to the need for written production (Meddings, 2012; Thornbury, 2002) Similarly, the commonality of

written genres to ESP, EAP and exam preparation courses necessitates the inclusion of writing skills components into curricula and syllabi in some contexts. The key is that writing tasks focus on emergent language and that the teacher reacts to and improves on the language that the students produce in a writing task. Collaborative writing of this type has been shown to lead to higher quality finished products (Li, 2013) and is viewed positively by learners (Dobao & Blum, 2013). Strong empirical support has been found for the notion that through the collaborative discussion of writing, learners can deepen their knowledge of the L2 and develop their language knowledge in general (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012).

One issue in the application of Dogme to teaching in Japan, where this study takes place, is that Asian learners are often characterised as reticent speakers (Flowerdew and Miller, 1996). This would make the implementation of Dogme teaching methods difficult, as no interaction would mean no emergent language. Cheng, (2000), however, asserts that Asian students are willing participants in discussions but that lack of familiarity with such classroom practices is the key inhibitor and my own experience teaching in Japan would support this view.

Aims of the research

The aim of the research was to investigate the learners’ perspectives on a Dogme style writing lesson.

As such, a writing lesson was designed utilising a Dogme approach and quantitative and qualitative data was collected from learners following the lesson via questionnaire. The research method adopted was a post-lesson ref lective questionnaire. The benefit of the questionnaire is that it can be administered relatively quickly after the lesson and will not take much time to complete. The questionnaire targeted the learners’ perceptions of the lessons as a whole in comparison to the coursebook/model text approach. The questionnaire also probed learners’ preferences regarding, group, pair or individual writing and also how they view other students reading their essays and the utility of examining peers’ work for useful language. The questionnaire employed both semantic differential scale items and multiple-choice questions.

40

Journal of Policy Studies No.56 (March 2018)

Implementation of the lesson

The lesson focused on IELTS Task 2 Writing, which is a 250-word essay. The lesson was delivered to an in-tact class studying for the IELTS test. The learners were of an intermediate level and ranged in ages from approximately 16 to 30. There were 10 students present in the class.

Dogme principles tend to suggest that pre-deter-mined content is proscribed, but IELTS exam ques-tions cannot be chosen by the learners themselves, unlike topics of conversation, so generating the tasks from the ‘people in the room’ (Meddings & Thorn-bury, 2009, p7) may not be entirely appropriate. Where this lesson will embody the principles of Dogme is in working with what the learners generate in response to the question and how that language is reformulated or upgraded by the teacher to improve the finished product.

Firstly, after examining the essay question, learners brainstormed ideas on the question in small groups. Following this, language was elicited from all groups and boarded by the teacher. At this stage, the language that emerged was improved, or reformulated, by the teacher to encourage to student notice the gap (Schmidt & Frota, 1986), or realise where weak points exist in the language they can produce. The immediate relevance of the emergent language at this stage, and the fact that it is helping the learners express the ideas they want to express, should aid acquisition. Learners then wrote the essay in small groups, and then critiqued the work of other groups and provided feedback. Acquisition is also facilitated in lesson stages where students share the parts of the essay that they have constructed together with other groups.

Similarly, the dialogic, or interactive social aspect of group essay writing and class feedback used in this class is also fundamental to Dogme approach (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009) where learners can learn from the strengths of their peers and input from the teacher.

Results & Discussion

The below graphs detail the quantitative responses

to semantic-differential scale questions in the ques-tionnaires and are supported by selected qualitative comments from the open-ended questions. Results are described below and key issues highlighted.

Clearly, the above graph demonstrates that the response to the approach was overwhelmingly posi-tive with all ten learners feeling that the lesson was effective in improving their writing skills.

Overall, learners also felt that collaborating to produce essays was an effective approach. Only one learner in fact stated that they felt this part of the lesson was ineffective. This learner stated in their qualitative response ‘I can write [individually] without interfering’. This student was of a higher level and more experienced in writing IELTS essays, so while his contribution would have undoubtedly been of help to the other learners in the class, and certainly facilitated learning, he felt little benefit from their contributions.

Other learners highlighted the benefits of both collaborative and individual writing stating ‘I want to know information from other students’, and ‘I can try to write essays by myself.’ This perhaps reflects

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Yes No

Graph 1: Was the lesson effective?

Highlyineffective

Ineffective Neither Highlyeffective

Effective0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Graph 2: Effectiveness of working with others to produce essays

41

T. Stones, Investigating Student Attitudes to a Dogme Approach to IELTS Essay Writing

the view that in an IELTS situation you need to be able to produce and effective essay independently, but that also that there are developmental benefits. It is also possible to reconcile individual with collab-orative writing where the brainstorming and review stages can be done in groups, but the actual writing itself can be done individually. However, another learner also highlighted a common barrier to effec-tive group work: non-contribution from group mates. ‘I don’t like [working] with other people, because someone doesn’t talk’. Clearly, this learner, rightly, felt that group work will not be productive unless other learners are active and buy into the process. Effective group work is predicated on the free exchange of ideas, but that is undermined if ideas are not being exchanged. This is a major concern for any pedagogical context that emphasises dialogic communication and teachers need to have techniques and strategies to deal with such eventualities. In particular, allowing for individual planning time before discussions and also, in an IELTS prepara-tion context, emphasising the benefits of discussion in improving speaking skills and therefore their speaking score can help to overcome this.

The above two graphs demonstrate the learners’ attitudes towards two components of peer review, accuracy-based feedback and appropriating useful language. They are clearly more positive on using other learners writing as a source of useful language, ref lected in the comment ‘I want help from other students’, but are less enthusiastic on accuracy-based feedback. This would clearly seem to ref lect the belief that other learners are also second-language users of the language and so would be less capable than a native speaker in making accurate grammati-cality judgements.

Learner opinion was also split when discussing preferences for textbook versus in-class generated vocabulary, though largely they favoured in-class generated language use. This supports one of the central ideas of a Dogme, learner-centred approach where language is generated based on the ideas the learners themselves have. Learners clearly see the benefits of such an approach over text-book based vocabulary input, commenting that ‘the book vocabulary is hard use because it isn’t match my point’ and also ‘I like not book. I can express my idea better with teacher’s help’. The comments here clearly demonstrate support for a Dogme-like approach to vocabulary generation as the language learned is directly relevant to the ideas the learners want to express; this has clear benefits for language acquisition and motivation and both are enhanced when the language learned is generated by and specific to the learners’ individual ideas they want to express.

Despite the broadly positive reaction of the learners to this approach, there were some issues in the lesson delivery and the general efficiency

Highlyineffective

Ineffective Neither Highlyeffective

Effective012345678

Graph 3: Effectiveness of highlighting useful language in other learners' essays

Highlyineffective

Ineffective Neither Highlyeffective

Effective0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Graph 4: Effectiveness of other learners pointing out errors

012345678

Generate Ideas Use textbook ideas

Graph 5: Preference for using textbook vocabulary or in-class generated vocabulary

42

Journal of Policy Studies No.56 (March 2018)

of the lesson as a whole. Learners spent consider-able amounts of time discussing options on what to write, without making any firm decisions about a final product. Enforcing time limits on the amount of discussion that is allowed may help them reach a decision, though care needs to be taken to ensure that learners are not rushed through the process and that there is enough time afforded to allow the exchange of ideas. One learners view on this was ‘I think that I can share with other people in class, but I felt little bit no efficiency to time’, suggesting that while there was clear benefits in terms of idea exchange, the process could have been more efficiently dealt with. However, the amount of speaking that was generated in one of the groups was considerable and collabora-tive writing, in groups which contain strong compe-tent speakers, can also be an excellent way to develop speaking skills.

Conclusion

Overall, it is clear that with this group of learners in this context a Dogme/collaborative based approach to writing was viewed positively and that they felt it facilitated learning. They all felt the lesson was effective and the comments they made supported some of the central tenets of Dogme-based learning. However, they also remarked that the lesson could have been more efficient and other comments suggested teachers need to take care when matching learners in groups in terms of level and relative knowledge of the IELTS test, as a significant imbalance can lead to some frustration if not for all participants. That said, this depends very much on the personality of the individuals involved, and it is not always the case that a skill or knowledge asymmetry leads to incom-patible pairings.

In addition, as this was an exam-writing class, in this case for IELTS, and as writing is essentially an individual pursuit, a combination of collabora-tive and individual writing would best suit indi-vidual learner preferences and facilitate better test preparation. This would also provide opportunities for collaborative learning and for mediated develop-ment through the support of other learners and also the teacher.

Other considerations are that the small numbers

of students in this class meant that this approach was possible. Other contexts where larger numbers of less ‘enthusiastic’ learners may mean that there is a lack of engagement in collaborative learning tasks or in idea generation for written essay tasks. In addition, a lack of familiarity with an approach to learning of this type requires a certain amount of patience and training at the start of its implementation. Once this has been overcome, learners, as demonstrated above, do see the advantages of such an approach and tend to come to prefer it when properly managed and implemented.

Further empirical research on the above approach would also be fruitful to discover the impact of collaborative versus paired writing and differences in individual, small-group, and teacher led-gener-ation as well as variations of the above. A pyramid approach is likely the most effective, moving from individual, to pairs, to small-group to whole class stages, which while appearing inefficient, can lead to the generation of a wide range of high quality language and ideas.

Likewise, digital platforms such as GoogleDocs, Padlet & MeetingWords are effective in enhancing collaborative writing in a number of ways, namely that it is far easier to share what has been produced via a projector or computer screen, if facilities are available, and also allows for closer monitoring of the writing process by the teacher. This also allows for input, error-correction and upgrading ‘at source’ as the learners are producing their sentences. This can also allow for such writing tasks to be conducted at a distance and do not require attendance in a physical classroom.

In conclusion, it is clear that a Dogme-based approach to writing is one that carries consider-able value and is one that is perceived positively by learners. However, care needs to be taken in the delivery in the lesson and in assigning groups to avoid significant knowledge or skill disparities. It also appears the optimal use of this technique is to combine it with others, such as individual writing and structured peer feedback to, in true Dogme style, truly meet the needs of the learners in the room.

43

T. Stones, Investigating Student Attitudes to a Dogme Approach to IELTS Essay Writing

REFEREnCESCheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28,

435 – 446. Dobao, A. F. & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and

small groups: Learner’s attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365 – 378.

Ellis, N. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1996). Lectures in a second language: notes toward a cultural grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 15 (2), 121 - 140.

Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In E. Tomasello (ed. ). The new psychology of language (pp 155 - 175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Hienle.

Li, M. (2013). Individual novices and collective experts: Collective scaffolding in wiki-based small group writing. System, 41, 752 – 769.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: a design feature in second language methodology. In deBot, K. Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39 - 52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged. Surrey, UK: DELTA Publishing.

Meddings, L. (2012). Luke Meddings at the International House Conference 2012. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Gs4mmB2h8

Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language Acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In P. Lantolf Ed. Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. (2000). A dogma for EFL. IATEFL Issues, 2, 153.Thornbury, S. (2005). Dogme: dancing in the dark. Folio, 9, 2.Thornbury, S. & Meddings, L. (2001). The roaring in the chimney

(Or: what are coursebooks good for?). Modern English Teacher, 10 (3).

Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374.

44

Journal of Policy Studies No.56 (March 2018)