L2 speaking

Dogme Language Teaching (Dogme ELT) is an innovative learner-centered methodology and a movement for teaching English (or any other L2) that primarily focuses on face-to-face interaction between teacher and learners and among the learners themselves (Thornbury, 2009) without using any preplanned and established instructional materials, syllabuses, or preset activities. Despite many claims by the proponents, research evidence for Dogme ELT is very limited; accordingly, this sequential explanatory mixed-method study sought to examine the effect of Dogme ELT on L2 speaking andwillingness to communicate (WTC)across different proficiency levels among Iranian EFL learners at a private language institute. Participants included 14 intermediate, 12 upper-intermediate, and 12 advanced level learners from both genders in three intact classes as the experimental groups. Three other intact classes comprising 13 intermediate, 13 upper-intermediate, and 11 advanced level learners, respectively were selected as control groups who received the mainstream communicative language teaching (CLT) for their L2 instruction. The treatments continued for two subsequent semesters including thirty 1.5-hour sessions. Quantitative data analysis using two-way ANCOVA revealed that Dogme ELT was more effective than CLT only for the advanced but not for the intermediate and upper-intermediate learners’ speaking and WTC. Qualitative data analysis revealed that most advanced and only some upper-intermediate learners had positive attitudes about Dogme ELT. The findings of the current investigation suggest that Dogme ELT should be used for advanced EFL levels and its application should be done with more caution.

The studies conducted so far on the effectiveness of resolution methods including the discussion method in resolving discrepancies in rating have yielded mixed results. What is left unnoticed in the literature is the potential of discussion to be used as a training tool rather than a resolution method. The present study addresses this research gap by exploring the data coming from rating behaviors of 5 Iranian raters of English. Qualitative analysis of the data indicated that the discussion method can serve the function of training raters. It helped raters rate more easily, quickly and confidently. Furthermore, it helped them improve their understanding and application of the rating criteria and enabled them justify their scoring decisions. Many-faceted Rasch analysis also supported the beneficial effects of discussion in terms of improvement in raters’ severity, consistency in scoring, and the use of scale categories. The findings provide insight into the potential of discussion to be used as a training tool especially in EFL contexts in which lack of access to expert raters can be an obstacle to holding training programs. The author argues for future studies to focus on how discussion may function depending on the rating scale used.