Make your own course

I’m never happy just doing something, I like to know how it works and why. Probably the reason why I used to dismantle all my toys as a kid/teen/adult. This is true for my teaching too (not the toy part). Basically, I think the average EFL class consists of:

Listening (input)

Reading (input)

Speaking (language practice)

Writing (though not enough)

Grammar x1 point

Functional language

Vocab x7ish

If you’re using a book each unit normally has these. As we all know, the majority of books also follow a grammar-based syllabus from the infamous present to past then future, conditionals, modals, phrasal..YAWN!! So if you need 3rd Conditional you’ll have to wait til Up-int+. Imagine that for a pre-inter who needs it or idioms and lots of phrasal verbs. 3 terms until they get what they want. Ahhh!

So, if these are the elements and after a few years you get a good grasp on the grammar development stages then aren’t you pretty equipped to make your own course? Add to that the CEFR statements too and you’re onto a winner. Here’s a Dogme-style example that uses Dale Coulter’s REVERSE LESSON idea that could fit any level, topic or specialism:

1)Discuss a topic

2)Work on necessary vocab needed to support the discussion/topic

3)Work on grammar points that are weak and preventing expression

4)Ask pairs to draft and write a short piece using these points about their discussion

5)Swap texts, read, discuss, correct, extend

6)Move the conversation on using ideas from the discussions

7)Recycle+extend language/grammar

8)Ask 1 student to present his/her ideas/thoughts and do a Q&A

9)Repeat in groups

10)Do a FB session and support language production making notes

11)Elicit and board main points of the class (all in context but using/demanding the grammar/vocab)

12)Discuss last thoughts and decide on reading/listening/online chat homework and prep for next class

Let’s do a checklist:

Listening

Reading

Speaking

Writing 

Grammar x1 point FAR MORE, possibly 2/3/4 but all related

Functional languageCovered and used

Vocab x7ish FAR MORE and all in context and connected

Advantages

This is all materials-free and based on the students

It is interesting for them

They will really get engaged

All the grammar/language is dealt with at a higher depth than just reading/matching

Everything is speaking-based which helps a lot of students absorb better

Disadvantages

Needs a class willing to ‘play the game’

And one with knowledge and opinions

Can take a while for students to get into this style

Needs you to stay on your toes and “adapt” as Bruce Li says.

Do/could you do this style of teaching and do you think it is better than a book heavy one?Why? Why not?

The end result should be that you can develop a course around any student that is as good as, if not better than, one provided by a book. Check the CEF can do statements to make sure you are on the right track but having a 10 lesson course that does all the main skills, has grammar points suitable for the level, lexis for the subject and helps the student progress at his/her level sounds pretty good to me.

The other main benefit is that no matter what the course/class, this structure works. Grammar is grammar but the vocab is the key. Learning how to adapt the input and focus is then the main priority. For instance, a 121 on Waste Management and one on developing customer relations skills can both cover all the skills but just in a different order or percentage.  In the first more input and vocab maybe needed but the second more functional language. The interactions will also have to be changes.

FEEDBACK

This idea is good in theory for EFL schools but from trying this recently with BA/MA students it doesn’t work. Why?

1)They are used to being lectured

2)They aren’t motivated to learning and improving English

3)Mixed skill work and lots of different types of activities just blows their mind

4)They take a lot longer to do things than my EFL students would

What now?

I need to do less activities and develop them more

I have to work from their strengths out ie start with reading/listening and move to speaking

Sometimes just doing a lecture-style class but sticking in speaking/listening/grammar extension bits can work better than just doing an EFL class with students who won’t like it.

The internet and me

Readers of this blog may know that in most of my classes I only have a projector so I use my laptop for whatever is needed. However, as some people have rightly commented, you may also say “hey, don’t you do Dogme though?” and you would be right. So, how do these 2 apparently contradictory extremes co-exist within the framework of an EFL/English learning classroom environment???

Good question….

Very good question actually…

As all things in my world seem to be natural so is this relationship. Nature and organic definitely apply to my view of teaching. What I mean is that lesson grow, I may prepare the pot and add some water or sun but it grows and develops into whatever shape it wants. Actually, the more you try to restrict and control, the more problems you have. Any readers of Taoism may see the similarity or fans of Bruce Lee or even Kung Fu Panda. Ah, the classics!!

And so….my view of tech has gone from gimmicky “wow look at what we can do with this new site” to basic tools integrated into the class. Thus, you don’t notice them but they’re used to their full effect to enhance the class and help it progress.

An example which was recommended by the Edutech and Dogme sage himself, Chiew Pang is GDocs. Set up one page, make it public and you’re away. A free e-board.

Basic you may say but very effective in the right hands, Chiew’s to be precise. Chiew told me that he opens a GDoc for students to write on like a blackboard and then has a written record of what was done. Thus, I started the same after each online grammar practice exercise I asked students to write something using the grammar point on the doc. They’re usually slow to start and just add silly things but after 2/3 goes it just became normal and you can see them writing and correct the process or the end result. At the end, I can also post the samples to a blog or ask them to correct or complete it for HW. I can also turn it into a PDF and mail it out. Chiew is a genius!! Just a word of warning though, 1 of my IT hackers managed to hack and freeze my Doc. As punishment he had to rewrite the whole thing for HW.

My other basic tools include The Free Dictionary which I use for higher learners for definitions, synonyms and antonyms, also the Oxford collocation dictionary for CAE/CPE students. Oh, and for lower levels conjugation.com and the Cambridge Int dictionary. All of these have a novelty factor but when students see that they aren’t just for fun but serious cognitive tools they became just an alternative to a coursebook or paper dictionary. Also, they start out being demo’d by me but then students start using them and after a lesson or 2 they automatically refer to them and I don’t use them except for checking.

Now, at this point the 2 or 3 sites we use are just modern versions of a paper dictionary and thesaurus and actually enhance student’s work. Tech-enhanced learning and not just gimmicks!!

My research journey into Dogme

I carried out and completed my MA research in 2010 on CBI. Why? Well, I’d been trying to teach speaking classes since my very first EFL job and always failed badly. I had tried all those famous ring bound or photocopiable books but to no success. I felt that just speaking wasn’t enough and that the topics/activities in the resources were never appealing. Yet, classes that evolved into speaking from some interesting and contemporary issue actually worked better than those labelled as speaking ones or communication skills.

I had thought TBL was the answer to all my previous doubts as it set realistic reasons for communication  but had grown tired of trying and failing to do language focus and of having students do unmeaningful tasks from books. CBI allowed me to teach a topic and bring in tasks.

At the time, I was the head of a debate course and had realised that CBI was the best way to run the course so over the summer I redesigned all 20 2 and 1/2 hour classes, created powerpoint slides, handouts, tests and collected multimedia resources. In the new term I began delivering this new course along with some colleagues. I had created it to teach/develop debate skills but the topics would be chosen by the students and be the real basis of the lessons. Every week there was a vote and students researched the topics.

By the end of the course I was very satisfied and my questionnaires collected positive FB from students and teachers. Many said learning by speaking was enjoyable and they really liked researching and talking about real issues. Out of 100 respondees 2 said that ‘debating is fake’ and ‘I like learning new things but don’t have time to make an opinion’. I also discovered a bit of prejudice amongst teachers about their views of their students preferring input rather than output, the students didn’t agree.

In my next job I tried delivering the same course in another country but it didn’t work at all and eventually I realised that the new students didn’t want to know how to debate properly, they just wanted to talk about issues they cared about so I got rid of the debate training and just did topics, discussion and some language. I then introduced this idea into all my courses.

At this point I started the DELTA EA in Business English Blended Learning and began reading about Dogme. Something just clicked. I suddenly realised why the debate course didn’t work and how I could solve it. Yes, I had been letting students select topics and helping with their language but was still forcing language sheets on them and had PPT, handouts and even videos. Thus, my Dogme dabbling began and my EA course developed ‘open activities’ and ‘conversation’ and ‘emergent focus’. the whole course was based entirely on the student DA/NA but I knew that in reality it would not be the tightly planned version I was writing. Nevertheless, I plodded on and finished and continued to experiment with Dogme in my classes.

By now, I had gathered interest and fear from colleagues and a reputation for not doing handouts and having loud talkative classes who also showed improvement in other lessons. This convinced me that I was onto a winner and so I began deconstructing my idea of teaching and taking a much wider view.

Now I consider Dogme to be the umbrella under which TBL and CBI coexist. For instance, many of my classes are based on news articles or short videos/audios and develop into authentic discussion/debate/analysis and we tackle the actual topic (CBI), I then cement TBL opportunities. Everything is based on what the students want and need and what they produce (linguistically yes but more and more actual content).

Is it just TBL? No, there is often no achievable end product as you never know where a conversation will lead. In this way Dogme grants more freedom of choice and these opportunities in the class that I didn’t have before

Is it IPE? Well, I used to be an IPEr and would spend hours planning how to integrate all those ideas but I ended up doing 3/4 times as much time on my plans as I did teaching them.