|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmb
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 8397
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:51 am Post subject: an interesting article |
 |
|
http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/comment/story/0,15090,1445118,00.html
| Quote: |
This is the word: it's got groove, it's got meaning
Language is not a machine, says Luke Meddings. To teach it as if it were would be to make robots of those attempting to learn
Friday March 25, 2005
Brace yourselves folks, spring is upon us and along with its showers of soot (I think that's what Chaucer said) I can announce the fifth anniversary of dogme ELT and what else but a brand new analogy to celebrate, more of which later.
Although I searched in vain for 'dogme' or anything like it in the glossary of teaching terms for the new Cambridge ESOL teaching knowledge test (TKT), the notion of materials-light, conversation-driven teaching continues to inspire devotion and the odd spot of derision and isn't going to go away.
It isn't quite as simple as that, as to these core principles one might add that teaching must be socially-constructed (ie talking about real life), improvisational and student-centred. None of these ideas are exclusive to dogme, but used in combination and as making socially-constructed conversation the motor of the class renders most published materials irrelevant anyway, they form a robust alternative teaching method.
Thinking about it, it's not that surprising that dogme ELT hasn't made it into TKT's glossary of "presentation techniques, approaches and introductory activities". Presentation doesn't really come into it - we allow the language to emerge from conversation. As for introductory approaches, we don't need them: the lesson starts with the conversation, and is propelled by it. An approach - well, I've already said it's more of a retreat - from the photocopier and linear learning models.
A central characteristic of dogme is that it isn't about delivery, which means that notions of syllabus, whether task-based, notional, structural or lexical, cease to be critical. Instead it's about exploration and discovery, shared by teacher and learners. A central perception is that language can not in fact be delivered, and that deciding on 'exponents' in advance of the conversation is pointless. How often do you practise conversations before you have them - except unconsciously, by having similar conversations about similar things?
Any road, to celebrate the fifth anniversary I thought I'd share a brand new analogy, and a happy Easter to those readers who leave us shortly. The great thing about this analogy is that it has taught me several new words, which if I were approaching this article like a conventional lesson plan might feature among my exponents, or at least my anticipated problems. But as I am not, you will have wait to see them in context.
Reviewing 'The 21st Century Brain: Explaining, Mending and Manipulating the Mind,' John McCrone outlines in the Guardian how, rather than treating the brain as a form of computer or information processing system - "a bit of machinery that can be tinkered with once we have the blueprint of its circuits," author Steven Rose argues that "the brain is something organic, holistic, a living system".
Cited in support of this idea is the theory of 'autopoiesis' developed in the early 1970's by the Chilean cognitive scientists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. An autopoietic system, the review explains, "is one organised to respond to the world. Prod it and it will react homeostatically, striving to reach a new accommodation that preserves its integrity. There is a global cohesion - a memory of what the system wants to be - that reaches down to organise the parts even while those parts may be adding up to produce the functioning whole."
This strikes me as the most beautiful analogy for language. "A memory of what the system wants to be" - how apt a description of the way we use languages which are not our own. A memory composed perhaps of our own first or familiar language, a memory, who knows, of deep structure, and a memory also of the different things we have been taught about the language. Reaching for the shape of what we want to say, even when the forms elude us.
But in this model it is not us reaching down to the language, it is language reaching down to itself, like a river's flow scooping the river bed for the elements which keep it alive. Keeping the water fresh is our job as teachers, ensuring the conversation is real and that the participants are engaged with one another.
The opposite of an autopoietic system, which is found in living organisms, is one which is allopoietic, and found in machines. A good example of an allopoietic system is a car assembly line, where each of the assembled parts has a different mechanism to the one in which it eventually serves. Isn't this how coursebooks treat language learning? One part today, another tomorrow, and each drilled as if it had some useful life of its own when it only functions as part of a more complex whole.
What to do with this analogy in the classroom? Well, stop 'teaching' language and start prodding. If an autopoietic system is one organised to respond to the world, let the world in, rather than using unit eight to keep it at bay, and see how the learners and their language respond.
Allow the learners' language to reach down to itself, and treat the language used by everyone in the room as, in Rose's view of the brain, "something organic, holistic, a living system". Language isn't a machine, and any method which implicitly treats it as one makes robots of the people trying to speak it.
Useful links
Information, advice and help to find a TEFL course
Comment
Views from the sector
Becoming a Tefl teacher
The ones to pick
Those who can
Advice for the classroom
A day in the life
View from abroad
TEFL directory
Make contacts across the globe
Talk about it
Get help and advice from your fellow teachers
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
molly farquharson
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 839
Location: istanbul
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting article indeed. Thanks for sharing it. Whether one calls it an autopoetic approach or not, good teachers do prod their students. There are times when you have to and do depart from the materials, but I don't agree with the dogme idea of no materials. I was a member of their list for a while, but it got kind of boring, as they seemed to be reinventing one of the many wheels of language teaching. However, since language is so fluid, I think that will continue, and it is probably a good thing. We are teaching our students to use our language to communicate with others (who are less and less likely to be native English speakers). SOme of us are learning their language. I am taking Turkish lessons again and although my Turkish is pretty good, I can see the holes in it gaping up at me. It keeps me sympathetic with the students and keeps me aware of how a mutual language is so important.
question: how many of you find your English sprinkled liberally with Turkish words these days? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
