Although Dogme language teaching gained its name from an analogy with the Dogme 95 film movement (initiated by Lars von Trier) in which the directors, actors, and actresses commit a "vow of chastity" to minimize their reliance on special effects that may create unauthentic feelings from the viewers,[3] the connection is not considered close.
Dogme also places more emphasis on a discourse-level (rather than sentence-level) approach to language, as it is considered to better prepare learners for real-life communication, where the entire conversation is more relevant than the analysis of specific utterances.
[8]Arguably, this suggestion that Dogme language teaching should be seen as being "text-driven", rather than "conversation-driven", caters to more reflective learners.
[5] Dogme teaching has therefore been criticized as not offering teachers the opportunity to use a complete range of materials and resources.
[12] Proponents of a Dogme approach argue that they are not so much anti-materials as pro-learner, and thus align themselves with other forms of learner-centered instruction and critical pedagogy.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that the initial call for a 'vow of chastity' is unnecessarily purist, and that a weaker adoption of Dogme principles would allow teachers the freedom to choose resources according to the needs of a particular lesson.
[20] Christensen notes that adoption of Dogme practices may face greater cultural challenges in countries outside of Europe, such as Japan.
[21] Questions have also been raised about the appropriateness of Dogme in low resource contexts and where students are preparing for examinations that have specific syllabi.
[22] In general, the criticisms and concerns that Dogme encounters revolve around several major issues: the theoretical foundation of the conversation-driven perspective, the under-preparedness of lesson structure, and the potential pressure on teachers and students in various learning contexts.
Dogme can challenge inexperienced teachers who have an inadequate pedagogical repertoire, and limited access to resources.