The Effect of Dogme ELT on Japanese University EFL Oral Communication Classes
Andy Rushton
1. Introduction
When assigned a third-year, elective, six-member 15-class Japanese University Oral
Communication EFL class, the realization that using the course textbook would probably be anissue was a very clear one. Dörnyei, [1](2001:63) makes the situation clear: "one of the mostdemotivating factors for learners is when they have to learn something that they cannot see thepoint of because it has no seeming relevance whatsoever to their lives." As expected, the students
did express dissatisfaction regarding the use of the ascribed class textbook, citing reasons similar
to Dörnyei’s above that the textbook topics were not interesting and lacked relevance. The small
number of students participating meant that Dogme ELT, with its reputation of being free fromtextbooks, was a viable option, but at the same time total abandonment of the stakeholder
sanctioned textbook was not. The challenge was to find a version of the Dogme ELT approach,maybe a “Dogme Light” that could be situated in the teaching context in question.
After a brief review of both Dogme ELT, and the Japanese EFL context this paper will discuss how
the approach was situated in the specific teaching situation of this researcher / practitioner. The
opinions of the learners collected through a short Likert-type questionnaire will be presented anddiscussed with some thoughts on future improvements that could be made in the specific context of aJapanese university EFL context.
2. Dogme ELTDogme ELT, or Dogme as it is also known, takes its name from the Danish “Dogme 95” film
movement that dismissed modern cinematography’s over-dependence on technicaleffects favouring instead the basic telling of a story set in the moment. For ELT, this means
questioning over-reliance on a “coursebook method” ([2]Thornbury, 2013b) and classroom
technology, equating to excessive teaching materials and aids. Instead, Dogme focuses on thepresent relevancy of learner-produced content allowing the syllabus to emerge from that i.e. a kindof Teaching Unplugged, which is also the title of the book by Meddings and Thornbury [3](2009).
According to Thornbury, [2](2013b), Dogme was “an attempt to revive strong Communicative
Language Teaching and task-based learning” the reputation of whose principles he believed had
been damaged by overuse of materials and their return to a traditional, grammar-based syllabus. In
the so-called “communicative” classroom this meant there was an abundance of grammatical terms
and very little actual language use between the learners themselves and their teachers. The extent
of Dogme`s identity as a “grammar-free approach” will be examined in section
2.3. Dogme challenges the teacher to resist the “pre-packaged materials” and instead exploit thelanguage emerging from the learners` “needs, interests, concerns and desires” to foster realcommunication embodying a learning methodology rather than a teaching one.

－ 19 －

Meddings and Thornbury [3] (2009), explain how Dogme manifests itself through the neitherprescriptive nor proscriptive three precepts of conversation-driven; materials-light; and a focus on
emergent language.
2.1 Conversation-driven
Conversation, the primal human interaction, is vital to language learning. Conventionally,
conversation is practised after grammatical accuracy and vocabulary building have been taught,
contrary to a natural learning context where the acquisition of a full grammar follows earlier
attempts with nascent conversations. In this way, the authors claim Dogme, like task-basedlearning, emphasizes fluency activities for producing learner language analyzed post
task. Furthermore, Dogme takes a discourse view of language, with conversation generating wholetexts rather than the less frequently occurring discrete sentences analysed in a traditional grammar
syllabus with its verb tense perspective. These conversational interactions provide the necessary
output on which feedback can be based (i.e. a focus on emergent language - see below). CLT requires
the exchange of supposed meaningful interaction often through artificially designed
information-gap activities. Conversation in a Dogme lesson, however, focuses on real interpersonalcommunication between the learners, and importantly the learners and the teacher. Dogme utilizes
conversation as a context for verbal scaffolding or “instructional conversations” which are more
effective than normal teacher-initiated question-and-answer interactions observed in traditionalclassroom talk. Conversation, then, is both a model of use and a means of language appropriation. It
might be argued that conversational register is casual and informal and inappropriate for learners
engaged in ESP, EAP, or exam classes. For this reason, Thornbury [4] (2013a) revised the term
conversation-driven to "text-driven" learning with the texts originating from the teacher or ideallythe learner, thus allowing for the inclusion of instruction requiring a more formal register.
2.2 Materials-light
Being controversially "anti-materials" has been the stance that has probably
shaped Dogme`s identity the most. Focusing on the political as well as the pedagogical, rather thanpromoting other forms of communicative competence by addressing local needs, textbooks
supposedly only push a mix of "grammar McNuggets" (decontextualized grammar), and Westernvalues, adding further to the globalization of culture. The authors assume, perhaps incorrectly, thatlearners have no interest in cultures other than their own, and that they should analyze commercial
texts to adapt them to their own culture and language traditions with teachers selecting only locally
produced textbooks. This adaption seems redundant when time might be better employed producing
learners` and teachers` own texts. Abandoning a textbook altogether is the ultimate option toembracing full learner-empowerment, and Thornbury [2] (2013b), believes conversation flourishes
when allowed space through the act of putting down the coursebook. Importantly, to the teachingcontext at hand, the authors do accept the ubiquitous use of stakeholder-sanctioned textbooks andmake allowances for this, by stating, perhaps contradictorily, that modern textbooks can provide
plenty of opportunities for interaction within carefully chosen topics and freer practice tasks.

－ 20 －

Completely textbook-free Dogme contexts may therefore be rare, especially in a Confucian-tradition
culture such as Japan with its reliance on a teacher-centred pedagogy.
2.3 Focus on Emergent Language
The authors argue that instead of “covering” an externally imposed syllabus, Dogme is a processsyllabus “uncovered” or emerging from within the learner to be further negotiated and evaluated byboth teacher and learner. By starting from a communicative need and allowing grammar to emerge
as a by-product of communication rather than a taught random grammatical item in a prescriptive
linear process, the authors believe communicative competence grows in an organic
way. Dogme identifies closely with being task-based, with accuracy emerging from fluency, butdiffers in its focus on spontaneous interpersonal-conversation rather than planned tasks. Any focus
on form is in response to an actual need occurring in communication, so from thisperspective, Dogme is hardly "grammar-free" and consequently its appeal to more traditional
Confucian-tradition learners is viable. Furthermore, merely creating the conditions for language toemerge is insufficient. When language does emerge, it needs to be worked on by the teacher in
unison with the learners, and effectively "scrutinised, manipulated, personalised, and practised".
Furthermore, this focus on form is what “triggers a shift in the system” i.e.
the learner`s interlanguage, with ever accumulating fragments (formulaic language) allowing
greater communicative participation rather than the construction of “perfect” grammar in“well-formed sentences” preferred by a grammatical syllabus ([2] Thornbury, 2013b).
Elsewhere in the literature this approach to L2 learning is validated. Ellis, [5] (1998, citedin Thornbury, 2002) states that allowing learners “ownership” of classroom discourse by processes
such as topic initiation, is the way learning opportunities can be created, anduses Vygotskian Social-Cognitive theory to emphasize the importance of classroom discourse and its
manifestation with relation to affecting acquisition. Maximum learning can occur when learner
output is scaffolded by the teacher in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and indicates thenecessity for learners to control classroom discourse. The teacher is able to gain insight into what
the learner can produce by themselves by analysing language contained in the ZPD which
subsequently informs the scaffolding required to assist the learner to use and internalize new
language.

3. Dogme and Communicative Language Teaching
According to Richards and Rogers [6](2001) a general set of principles of CLT learning theory
includes: language learnt by communicating; authentic and meaningful activities; a premium on
fluency; communication produced through integrative language skills; and learning from trial anderror through creative communicative risk-taking. As a CLT approach, Dogme embraces all ofthese.
As previously mentioned, Dogme identifies with the strong version of CLT which uses English tolearn English, which Thornbury [7](2015) labels "a core tenet...and captured in the term

－ 21 －

fluency-first" . Krashen`s theory, that language acquisition relies on unconscious communicative
language use as opposed to learning as a result of a conscious attempt to understand grammar
through instruction, is not directly connected with CLT but his principles have been evident andperhaps guide the stronger “grammar-free” approach. Dogme, however, despite its supposed affinity
with "strong CLT", does not match the stronger grammar-free label exactly, as a reactive focus onform is required as previously mentioned.
4. Dogme and its Cultural Appropriacy
The cultural appropriacy of the communicative approach is something that has received more
attention in recent years as its influence finds its way into non-Western pedagogical contexts. In
Japan, for example, traditionally the teacher is viewed as “an expert and leader” due to a cultural
expectation of teacher-centred learning, and there is a need to qualify a definition of“communicative competence” in the Japanese EFL context ([8]Hedge, 2001). As Dogme is anapproach and not a method, it lends itself to being flexible to the context at hand: a single version
of Dogme does not exist. The Dogme practitioner, fulfilling the dual roles of teacher as expert, andembedded participant, is able to provide appropriate feedback and input to be delivered with
precision, and immediacy as a situated pedagogy relevant to the teaching context.
4.1 Japanese Learners` Attitudes and Opinions to Dogme ELTWith Dogme still being a relatively new pedagogical approach there is a dearth of publishedmaterial relating to possible directions in which research could be carried out. Regarding Dogme ina Japanese EFL context, only two studies appear to exist. To investigate Japanese learners`
attitudes and opinions to Dogme, Worth, [9](2012), conducted a study with nine Japanese adultlearners in a mixed level, voluntary EFL context. Secondly, Rushton [10](2015), studied the opinions
and attitudes of Japanese EFL learners to Dogme on a corporate compulsory language training
program.
In Worth's study, learners were participating either as a hobby or for TOEIC preparation andexposed to both Dogme and conventional textbook lessons as a comparison.
Worth reported that the learners felt a Dogme-based approach gave speaking opportunities,
whereas textbook speaking incidences were not considered "natural". Dogme, however, was viewed
solely as speaking practice or "free conversation" with textbook lessons not equated with speaking,but rather with grammar input. Interestingly, grammar from the Dogme-based lessons was not
identified by students as an element that had been learned or even practised. This raises questions
as to how Worth dealt with emergent language in the Dogme lessons. He states: "It could be argued
that when specific grammar points are taught using a Dogme approach they need to be madeexplicit on occasions...," (emphasis added). While Worth retrospectively acknowledges some
importance of making explicit any efforts to provide grammar input within a Dogme lesson
framework, it would seem reasonable to surmise that opportunities for dealing with emergent
language were not fully taken in order to "scrutinise, manipulate, personalise, and practise" it.
Simply providing conditions for language emergence is insufficient, ([3]Meddings and Thornbury,－ 22 －

2009). Worth feels the learners identified the lesson as "free conversation" which once again
suggests feedback i.e. explicit attention to form, was minimal, if existent at all. It is debatable
whether this study reflects accurate learner attitudes and opinions to a Dogme approach as outlined
in Meddings and Thornbury [3](2009).
Furthermore, the learners considered a combination of both Dogme and textbook-based lessons, as
being the most suitable: grammar with the textbook; speaking practice without, or in this case
"Dogme". Worth noted that as the Japanese EFL learners had accepted his version of Dogme, there
was therefore a call to develop the approach rather than question it. He found that Dogme wasvalued by the learners, but only because it was used in conjunction with textbook-based
lessons: Dogme for speaking; textbooks for grammar. Worth observed that Dogme practitioners
promote Dogme as a replacement for textbook-based lessons rather than as a complement. Here"complement" most likely means "alternative" as it was unclear whether there was any connection
between the textbook lessons and the Dogme ELT lessons Worth taught. Worth used activities inthe "task bank" contained in Meddings and Thornbury [3](2009) "to initiate the conversation"although it is unstated exactly which activities were used.
Meddings and Thornbury [3](2009), acknowledge the mandatory nature of textbooks in mostteaching contexts and suggest "a compromise" by minimising grammar and focusing on "interesting
topics and interactive tasks" - using the textbook to contribute to the class rather than the other way
round. For a Japanese EFL context, this would seem to be the most probable model taking into
account its previous traditional pedagogical context.
Rushton [10](2015) examined attitudes and opinions of Japanese EFL learners to Dogme in a
corporate compulsory learning environment. Using a Dogme approach to achieve learning outcomes
was judged positively, however, an expectation of learner autonomy with regard to the lesson
direction i.e. content, was minimal with general deference to the teacher`s informed decisions,preferred. Dogme`s reactive focus on form was welcomed by the learners and fitted well withtraditional Japanese learner expectations of a teacher`s role as leader and expert. They also
generally felt they could acquire more language from their direct interaction with the teacher rather
than a textbook. The data also suggests that while some negativity was attached to textbooks, they
were generally required by learners to provide an official, artefactual framework for a syllabus.
Communicating directly with the native speaker teacher was a strong motivational factor.
Furthermore, with some level of teacher-coercion to add credence, learners were positive about
using the L2 to engage in productive tasks successfully. Generally, learners felt that speaking was
the best way to learn a language and this would fit with Dogme`s "conversation-driven" precept.
4.2 Dogme on an elective Japanese University EFL oral communication course
A gap in studies evaluating the attitudes and opinions of Japanese university EFL learners
to Dogme ELT on a English course clearly exists. The previously mentioned, 15-lesson elective
university course (Spring 2019 semester) had as its own mandated course book Cutting-edge
Pre-intermediate third edition, from which the first four units had been selected for the course and－ 23 －

appeared in the official university syllabus. The 14-unit textbook, only required for two semesters in
one single academic year, did have the potential, however, for available material from the first seven
units if required, as the second (Fall) semester, had been assigned Units 8 through 11.
Total abandonment of the textbook was not an option as not only had it been officially listed in thesyllabus, students had already purchased it for approximately ¥3,500 (US$35) and as previously
mentioned in Rushton(2015), Japanese learner expectations prevailed about the inclusion of the
textbook even if only in an archival capacity.
5. The Dogme Lessons
Prior to the course commencing there had been a decision made on behalf of the teacher/researcher
to try and apply a Dogme approach as much as possible over the duration of the course. Initially, thesecond lesson, as with the first lesson, used the textbook and its accompanying exercises, however, italso included a short informal feedback session from the students to gauge the suitability andinterest level of the material. It was noted that student interest in the course book exercises waslacking with generalized claims that the themes and topics were not relevant. Without mentioning
the term Dogme, they were asked, if instead of following the textbook exercises verbatim, theywould like to try lessons where conversation was central to the time spent in class. Full agreement
was gained but with the caveat given by the teacher that the textbook would be used in some way,even if only indirectly.
The Dogme approach was implemented in three ways: the adaption of a textbook lesson;
student-generated topics; and stand-alone activities, which in this case were taken from theactivities bank in Meddings and Thornbury [3](2009). What follows are some examples of how thesevarious interpretations of a Dogme approach were implemented over the remaining 13 lessons.
5.1 Lesson 3 - adaption of a textbook lesson
The grammar focus of Unit 1 was a review of questions with present simple tense and frequency
adverbs. On pages 12/13 the activity entitled Do a 60-second interview, is presented as a reading
activity (an interview with actress Frieda Pinto) and then a listening activity with a recording of two
students carrying out a similar interview using some question prompts from a “Useful Language”
section on the themes of personal information, interests and family, and the future. It is a typical
Unit 1 textbook activity which assumes the beginning of a course with inter-student unfamiliarity,with questions providing a good opportunity for a Getting-to-know-you style task. However, in thecontext in question, being third year students such basic information was very likely to be known
already. Students were handed a blank A4 sheet of paper and asked to write their name at the top
and divide the page evenly into three separated by the headings: personal information, interests andfamily, and the future. Individually, students circulated the papers filling out as many known
details about the person in question that they could remember. Papers were returned and students
then checked that the information about them was correct making any factual adjustments where
necessary. Students made pairs and then exchanged their papers with the task of asking further
questions to clarify given information e.g. You have two sisters. Who is the oldest?/Which one is－ 24 －

most like you? Or, to ask a new question about a piece of information on the profile. This was
repeated for two or three points before changing partners. During the student interaction theteacher circulated and joined the conversations as a teacher/participant, providing input andcorrection, where necessary and noting any new lexis input on blank A4 paper. This was also thetime when new language followed Thornbury and Meddings (2009) directive of being “scrutinised,
manipulated, personalised, and practised”. At the end of the lesson, the new lexis was written on theboard, explained, and students were encouraged to note down anything they thought wasinteresting and wanted to learn. From lesson 4 onwards, every lesson began with a review of noted
lexis from the previous class in pairs with attempted personalized examples with some possible
expansion into a short conversation.
5.2 Lesson 4 adaption of a textbook lesson
The lexical area of Unit 2 page 20 is Feelings. Page 20 has a graphic showing 12 expressive faces
with blank spaces underneath for lexis to be inserted from a list of feelings adjectives (stressed,
excited, disappointed etc). A photocopy of the faces was presented to each student and in pairs they
were asked to suggest emotions for each one. The suggested answers were given and compared with
their own ideas. Following this, the prompt, “I feel … when… was provided. Students were
instructed to select three or four of the emotions and think how they would complete the sentence
making brief notes for each one. They were then instructed to ask the question “What makes you______ ? inserting one of their own chosen emotions in the blank. In this way, a conversation could
be started with a partner. Once again, the teacher participated providing input and correction asnecessary with a plenary feedback session at the end where new lexis was shared on the board andnoted by students for a review in the following lesson.
5.3 Lesson 5 adaption of a textbook lesson
The theme of pages 20/21 is Describe a first or last time. Students were asked to access the internet
at http://iteslj.org/questions/whenwasthelast.html which gives a list of questions beginning with
When was the last time you…? and select two ideas from the list and use them as presented (lasttime) or changed to “first time” or any other adaptations they wished to make to the content of thequestions, or provide their own question. Students were then provided with the prompts: I’ll neverforget the first/last time I… It was about (five) years ago. I was about (age) at the time. They thenmade notes to prompt themselves when they were speaking. In pairs they began conversations withthe teacher/participant monitoring and providing both correction and input. Once again lexis waspresented to the class and notes taken by the learners.
5.4 Lesson 9 student-generated topics
Due to there being only three students in the class on that particular day, the students were given
the task of initiating their own conversations based on their own topics. This was slow to get started
which as stated in Rushton (2015) demonstrates that Japanese learners are not used to taking
responsibility for their classroom conversational topics, instead, preferring to defer to the teacher to－ 25 －

provide the topic. On this occasion, the teacher as participant was able to initiate conversations fromquestions, the answers to which were based on student topic input.
5.5 Lesson 13 and 14 Teaching Unplugged Activities banki. Headlines
The students were instructed to think of a real story from their own lives no matter how mundane,
and write a headline for it. Examples from the book include, Shopping disaster, Weekend traffichorror, and Tennis triumph. After the language was checked by the teacher, students paired up,
displayed their headline and were interviewed by their partner.

ii. Slices of LifeA large three-segment pie chart was drawn on the board and given the title “My week”. The
segments were labeled Like, Don’t like, and Don’t mind. Students then talked about their week so
far with regard to the three labels with a partner.

iii. Memory Stars
A five-pointed star was drawn on the board, inside each point of the star the words sight, sound,
touch, smell and taste were written. Students were directed to write a word or phrase that evoked amemorable experience for each particular sense, for example, in the point labeled “sight” - A view ofKobe Port from Mount Rokko, and so on for each of the other senses. Students formed pairs andasked each other about what had been written.

iv. Three wishes
Five concentric circles were drawn on the board. In the inner circle was written Me, then Family andfriends, then My work/school, then My town/Neighborhood and in the outermost circle, The World.
Students were instructed to write a wish for three of the circles. The language used was checked by
the teacher and then circles were exchanged with a partner who responded to their partner’s wisheswith comments, similarity or difference of opinions and asking questions.
The above four activities were joined by the teacher as a participant with feedback being given andemergent language being noted for further practice. These activities clearly had no connection withthe textbook and seemed to be the most successful in terms of student motivation, engagement andvolume of language produced. Therefore, in a university setting, unlike a corporate one, the total
abandonment of the textbook may be possible.
6. Research question / Questionnaire results and discussion
The aim of the research was to investigate the opinions and attitudes of Japanese university
students towards the perceived benefits of Dogme ELT as a means of improving their English on anelective Oral Communication course.
To ascertain the students’ response to Dogme over the 15-week semestera Likert-style questionnaire was distributed (see appendix). The results of the questionnaire (N = 6)
are presented and interpreted below:－ 26 －

1. I enjoy using textbooks to learn English.
Five of the six students showed some level of disagreement with the statement.

2. Speaking in class without a textbook is the best way to learn English, and 11. I reallycommunicate well when there is no textbook, and 12. People learn a language by speaking it.
All six students agreed which would endorse Dogme’s conversation-driven premise.

3. The teacher gives me better ways to say things in English than the textbook, and 6. I learn morephrases and words from my teacher than from a textbook. and 8. I want to learn English that native
speakers use. and 10. I want the teacher to correct me and provide the right phrases.
The native speaker teacher embedded as participant being able to provide immediate input andcorrection was welcomed by all six students.

4. Doing a lesson without a textbook gives me a feeling of accomplishment, and 7. My motivation
increases without a textbook.
All students were in agreement that completing lessons without the apparent need of a textbook
added to their feeling of accomplishment which is surely a positive thing for their L2 learning
motivation.

5. No textbooks, makes the communication relevant to the learners.
A unanimous agreement here with the ability of students to shape the themes of the lesson by self
input despite being initially prompted by the teacher providing sentence prompts for the students tocomplete with their own ideas. The lesson framework was established by the teacher but the details
i.e. the personalization of the language was the students’ responsibility.

9. I like to know what the lesson is about at the beginning. This statement refers to a standard
teacher-fronted lesson where the topic or theme is provided by the teacher.
Two thirds of the students (4) preferred to know what the lesson was about at the beginning of thelesson although two disagreed with the statement.
7. Conclusion
It can be seen that Dogme ELT is a viable approach for students on an elective Japanese university
EFL Oral Communication course. Students appreciate the immediacy of native speaker teacher
feedback and input and the effect on L2 learning motivation is self-evident from the data collected.
The class size, however, is not usual for a Japanese university setting and further research is
required with larger classes. Furthermore, it is important to investigate other combinations ofvariables such as both non-native teacher led and compulsory courses. Both larger numbers ofstudents and a compulsory course mean that oral testing becomes necessary to standardize thegrading process. How this would be achieved using a Dogme approach is yet to be considered andfurther research is clearly required. It is hoped that this can be investigated in the above context inthe very near future.

－ 27 －

8. References[1] Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
[5] Thornbury, S (2002) Training in instructional conversation. In Trappes-Lomax, H., andFerguson, G. (Eds.) 2002. Language in Language Teacher Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
95-106.
[4] Thornbury (2013a) What's wrong with Dogme (online), retrieved on 27 July, 2019 from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9U_vqrJ4U[2] Thornbury, S (2013b) Resisting coursebooks. In J. Gray. (Ed.) Critical Perspectives on Language
Teaching Materials, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
[3] Meddings, L. and Thornbury, S. (2009) Teaching Unplugged, London: Delta[6] Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Thornbury, S. (2015) C is for CLT (online), retrieved on 28 July, 2019, fromhttps://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/c-is-for-clt/[8] Hedge, T. (2001) Teaching and learning in the language classroom (Vol. 106). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
[9] Worth, A. (2012) A Dogme based approach from the learners’ perspective. Journal of Kanda
University of International Studies 24/1: 77-99.
[10] Rushton, A. (2015) A Study into the Attitudes and Opinions of Adult Japanese EFL Learners
to Dogme ELT on a Compulsory, Corporate English Course. (M.A. Dissertation)－ 28 －

9. Appendix
Bilingual Likert-style questionnaire to ascertain attitudes and opinions regarding Dogme ELT.

－ 29 －