Direct Method
Direct Method
Direct Method
Introduction
At the turn of 20th century the Direct Method became quite widely known and practiced.
The basic premise of the Direct Method was similar to that of Gouin's Series Method, namely, that second language
learning should be more like first language learning-lots of oral interaction, spontaneous use of the language, no translation
between first and second languages, and little or no analysis of grammatical rules. Richards and Rodgers summarize the
principles of the Direct Method1
As with the Grammar-Translation Method, the Direct Method is not new. Its principles have been applied by language teachers for
many years. Most recently, it was revived as a method when the goal of instruction became learning how to use a foreign language
to communicate. Since the Grammar-Translation Method was not very effective in preparing students to use the target
language communicatively, the Direct Method became popular.2
The Direct Method has one very basic rule: No translation is allowed.
In fact, the Direct Method receives its name from the fact that meaning is to be connected directly with the target language,
without going through the process of translating into the students' native language.
The Direct Method enjoyed considerable popularity through the end of the nineteenth century and well into this one. It was
most widely accepted in private language schools where students were highly motivated and where native-speaking teachers could
be employed.
One of the best known of its popularizers was Charles Berlitz (who never used the term Direct Method and chose instead to
call his method the Berlitz Method). To this day "Berlitz" is a household word; Berlitz language schools are thriving in every
country of the world. Enthusiastic supporters of the Direct Method introduced it in France and Germany (it was officially approved in
both countries at the turn of the century), and it became widely known in the United States through its use by Sauveur and Maximilian
Berlitz in successful commercial language schools. (Berlitz, in fact, never used the term; he referred to the method used in his schools as
the Berlitz Method)3
But almost any "method" can succeed when clients are willing to pay high prices for small classes, individual
attention, and intensive study. The Direct Method did not take well in public education where the constraints of budget,
classroom size, time, and teacher background made such a method difficult to use. Moreover, the Direct Method was
criticized for its weak theoretical foundations. Its success may have been more a factor of the skill and personality of the
teacher than of the methodology itself.
By the end of the first quarter of 20 th century the use of the Direct Method had declined both in Europe and in
the United States. Most language curricula returned to the Grammar Translation Method or to a "reading approach" that
emphasized reading skills in foreign languages. But interestingly enough, by the middle of the century the Direct Method
was revived and redirected into what was probably the most visible of all language teaching "revolutions" in the
modern era, the Audio-lingual Method.
1
3. The native language should not be used in the classroom.
4. The teacher should demonstrate, not explain or translate. It is desirable that students make a direct association between
the target language and meaning.
5. Students should learn to think in the target language as soon as possible. Vocabulary is acquired more naturally if
students use it in full sentences, rather than memorizing word lists.
6. The purpose of language learning is communication (therefore students need to learn how to ask questions as well as
answer them).
7. Pronunciation should be worked on right from the beginning of language instruction.
8. Self-correction facilitates language learning.
9. Lessons should contain some conversational activity-some opportunity for students to use language in real contexts. Students
should be encouraged to speak as much as possible.
10. Grammar should be taught inductively. There may never be an explicit grammar rule given.
11. Writing is an important skill, to be developed from the beginning of language instruction.
12. The syllabus is based on situations or topics, not usually on linguistic structures.
13. Learning another language also involves learning how speakers of that language live.
2
• What areas of language are emphasized? What language skills are
emphasized?
Vocabulary is emphasized over grammar. Although work on all four skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) occurs from
the start, oral communication is seen as basic. Thus the reading and writing exercises are based upon what the students practice orally
first. Pronunciation also receives attention right from the beginning of a course.
• What is the role of the students' native language?
The students' native language should not be used in the classroom.
• How is evaluation accomplished?
We didn't actually see any formal evaluation in the class we observed; however, in the Direct Method, students are asked to use the
language, not to demonstrate their knowledge about the language. They are asked to do so using both oral and written skills. For
example, the students might be interviewed orally by the teacher or might be asked to write a paragraph about something they
have studied.
P.s
The principles are seen in the following guidelines for teaching oral language, which are still followed in
contemporary Berlitz schools:
• Never translate: demonstrate, .
• Never explain: act,
• Never make a speech: ask questions,
• Never imitate mistakes: correct,
• Never speak with single words: use sentences,
• Never speak too much: make students speak much,
• Never use the book: use your lesson plan,
• Never jump around: follow your plan,
• Never go too fast: keep the pace of the student,
• Never speak too slowly: speak normally,
• Never speak too quickly: speak naturally,
• Never speak too loudly: speak naturally,
• Never be impatient: take it easy.
3
alternate answer he supplied.
There are, however, other ways of getting students to self-correct. For example, a teacher might simply repeat what a
student has just said, using a questioning voice to signal to the student that something was wrong with it.
Another possibility is for the teacher to repeat what the student said, stopping just before the error. The student
knows that the next word was wrong.
Conversation Practice
The teacher asks students a number of questions in the target language, which the students have to understand to be able to
answer correctly. In the class observed, the teacher asked individual students questions about themselves. The questions contained a
particular grammar structure. Later, the students were able to ask each other their own questions using the same grammatical
structure.
Fill-in-the-blank Exercise
This technique has already been discussed in the Grammar-Translation Method, but differs in its application in the Direct
Method. All the items are in the target language; furthermore, no explicit grammar rule would be applied. The students would have
induced the grammar rule they need to fill in the blanks from examples and practice with earlier parts of the lesson.
Dictation
The teacher reads the passage three times. The first time the teacher reads it at a normal speed, while the students just
listen. The second time he reads the passage phrase by phrase, pausing long enough to allow students to write down what they
have heard. The last time the teacher again reads at a normal speed, and students check their work.
The Decline of the Direct Method4
The Direct Method was quite successful in private language schools, such as those of the Berlitz chain, where paying
clients had high motivation and the use of native-speaking teachers was the norm. But despite pressure from proponents of
the method, it was difficult to implement in public secondary school education. It overemphasized and distorted the
similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom foreign language learning and failed to consider the
practical realities of the classroom.
So it was perceived to have several drawbacks. First, it required teachers who were native speakers or who had native-like
fluency in the foreign language. It was largely dependent on the teacher's skill, rather than on a textbook, and not all teachers
were proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere to the principles of the method. Critics pointed out that strict
adherence to Direct Method principles was often counterproductive, since teachers were required to go to great lengths to
avoid using the. native tongue, when sometimes a simple brief explanation in the students native tongue would have been a.
more efficient route to comprehension.
By the 1920s, use of the Direct Method in noncommercial schools in
Europe had consequently declined. In France and Germany it was gradually modified into versions that combined some Direct
Method tech-
niques with more controlled grammar-based activities. The European
popularity of the Direct Method in the early part of the twentieth century
caused foreign language specialists in the United States to attempt to
have it implemented in American schools and colleges, although they
decided to move with caution. A study begun in 1923 on the state of
foreign language teaching concluded that no single method could guarantee successful results. The goal of trying to teach
conversation skills
4
J. C. Richard and Theodore S. Rodgers, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching Cambridge University Press, 1997,
p.9-12
4
was considered impractical in view of the restricted time available for
foreign language teaching in schools, the limited skills of teachers, and
the perceived irrelevance of conversation skills in a foreign language for
the average American college student. The study-published as the
Coleman Report-advocated that a more reasonable goal for a foreign
language course would be a reading knowledge of a foreign language,
achieved through the gradual introduction of words and grammatical
structures in simple reading texts. The main result of this recommen-
dation was that reading became the goal of most foreign language pro
grams in the United States. The emphasis on reading
continued to characterize foreign language teaching in the United States
until World War II.
Although the Direct Method enjoyed popularity in Europe, not everyone had embraced it enthusiastically. The British
applied linguist Henry Sweet had recognized its limitations. It offered innovations at the level of teaching procedures but
lacked a thorough methodological basis. Its main focus was on the exclusive use of the target language in the classroom, but it
failed to address many issues that Sweet thought more basic. Sweet and other applied linguists argued for the development
of sound methodological principles that could serve as the basis for teaching techniques. In the 1920s and 1930s applied
linguists systematized the principles proposed earlier by the Reform Movement and so laid the foundations for what
developed into the British approach to teaching English as a foreign language.
Subsequent developments led to Audio-lingualism in the United States and the Oral Approach or Situational Language
Teaching in Britain.
5
6
7
8
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: