I was involved in a conversation recently in which we discussed the possibility of offering first year secondary students a far more flexible course: textbook-less and exam-light, perhaps project-based. While discussing the problems and throwing various opinions around, two things stood out to me. The first was that in many ways, the default position for planning a course is to talk about the materials more than the learners. Another default is the belief that new or inexperienced teachers need directing to materials or need to have a ready supply of materials to choose from, rather than seeking out their own and building the course for themselves.
Personally, I consider myself to be in a similar position to that described recently by Neil McMahon, who referred to starting out as a teacher with few materials in a less than well-supported environment. I learned to get by on my own without materials and was employing some techniques associated with Dogme before I'd ever heard the word. I wonder to what extent spoon-feeding and over-supporting new teachers leads to materials focussed teachers?
It was also suggested that students prefer having a book, or at least a clear syllabus, because they can tick things off as completed. It was felt by some that this path to follow was needed to provide structure. I can't help wonder to what extent this is coming from the preferences of the teachers, as teachers and as learners, but also that perhaps the students really do, but only because this is what they have become used to.
When one proposes ideas from a Dogme-influenced perspective, I believe that these defaults are common in many (most?) schools and teachers. I found myself arguing (in a very polite way) a few points related to these positions and on occasion, I found myself unable to explain myself (sometimes I'm not very good at debating!). The discussion itself was very interesting and provoked much reflection.
What was particularly interesting, is that when a relatively inexperienced teacher was asked about workload, materials and stressfulness in terms of what type of course she would prefer for this level and age, she suggested it was more difficult and stressful to have to get through a textbook syllabus. She proposed that it would be much better to have a framework to follow and then be able to make her own decisions as to what would be included.
There is a balance, though. The framework provides structure that the school, the students and the teacher can rely on, with the added flexibility that the teacher can develop the course to fit the students, him/herself and the environment. I would say that is a good decision, rather than chucking everything away and making it up as you go along.
Hi Richard, and thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI've found myself having similar discussions with my private school's owner/manager, too. He respects my position but often makes the case that materials give students the comfort of structure and create the ability to measure progress. I see exactly what he means, but I'd say my own default position is still to go minimal and self-generated. It's nice to know you encounter the same things.
It's also encouraging to hear that your less-experienced colleague had the feeling that fewer materials might be less stressful - Dogme catches a lot of flak about supposedly being too hard for newer teachers. Is that because new teachers aren't trained to try it? I wonder what a dogme-influenced CELTA course would look like.
Secondly, I know what you mean about finding it hard to make a case in the abstract for materials-light approaches. There are so many variables in teaching that a theoretical justification sometimes isn't enough. Ideally, I'd like to swop some class observations with him, but due to timetabling, that just isn't feasible.
You mention a compromise structure above. What do you have in mind?
Hey Alan, thanks for the comment. My school is generally very keen on materials-light lessons/ courses. Text books are used, but sometimes over two years rather than one, to afford the teachers more space to tailor the course. As a result, there is a structure provided in the form of the book's syllabus, but with significant room for maneuver. This is the situation for secondary aged students and adults. We've also just introduced a 'Student Plan', a paper-based form completed by students and used to retrospectively reflect and remember/ review the work done over the previous week or so.
DeleteWith a few of my classes (two adults, one tweenies) I don't use any particular text book. I sometimes go completely with the flow and sometimes I bring in a few materials based on where the mood/ conversation has taken us the previous lesson. I'm reticent to go down any path that is completely dogme every lesson (whatever that actually is), because I believe in variety and sometimes I think bringing relevant materials in is fine, even a worksheet! Perhaps this IS (a form of) dogme? Maybe I approach things with a dogme mindset, at least I think so, in that the starting point is the students, not the materials. Isn't this simply 'student-centred teaching though'! ;)
The course we were discussing is proposed to go with a suggested text book, to be used or not, using the syllabus as a framework and leaving the teacher to decide how and in what order the topics and language points are covered. We'll build up a resource of suggested activities from this and see how it goes! The idea is to provide space for project work and more creativity, because the first year secondary students have enough on their plates in trying to fit in to a new school situation.