The Direct Method
Introduction of the Direct Method
The Direct Method first gained popularity in the late 1800s and 1900s. Students learn pronunciation through intuition and imitation; they also do their best to approximate a model-the teacher or a recording -through imitation and repetition. It has one very basic rule: no translation is allowed. This instructional method is grounded on observations of children learning their first language and of children and adults learning foreign languages in noninstructional settings. Proponents maintain that the initial focus on listening without pressure to speak gives learners the opportunities to internalize the target sound system. When learners do speak later on, their pronunciation is supposedly quite good despite their never having received explicit pronunciation instruction. Knowing a language is to be able to speak it. Second language learning must be an imitation of first language learning, as this is the natural way humans learn any language. Printed words must be kept away from second language learners for as long as possible (same as first language learners, who don't use printed words until they have good grasp of speech). The learning of writing should be delayed until after the printed words have been introduced.
The Background of the Direct Method
The first method that we shall look at in this historical examination, which has prevailed a long time in the teaching of English and of other modern languages, is based on grammar and translation. It is a deductive, intellectual method, according to which the language is acquired by memorizing the grammatical rules and paradigms and long lists of vocabularies, and is practiced by the application of this knowledge in exercises of direct and inverse translation. The first linguistic or analytic contribution to the teaching of pronunciation emerged in the 1890s as part of the Reform Movement in language teaching. The "naturalistic"-stimulating the "natural" way in which children learn first languages-approaches of Gouin and a few of his contemporaries did not take hold immediately. A generation later, applied linguistic finally established the credibility of such approaches. Thus it was that at the turn of the century, the Direct Method because quite widely known and practiced.
Once it was decided that when learning a foreign language, the objective should be the ability to communicate with speakers of that language, rather than just the ability to read literary works, the method using grammar and translation was seen as no longer serving a purpose, or could not at least be employed exclusively. Thus in the 1920s and 1930s a series of methodological initiatives arose, later to be grouped under the heading of "the direct method", and whose common denominator is the idea that pupil should be placed in direct contact with the language he chooses to acquire, through the simulation of concrete situation, as authentic as possible in the classroom situation. 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.
The Effect of the Direct Method
The method is the basis of the approach that is still used today by the Berlitz language schools. In the method, the language is seen as being fundamentally a means of communication. The language that is taught is ordinary, everyday language.
The theory of learning is based upon an associationist psychology; sounds (words) are associated with other ideas. The route into the target language is direct-learners do not translate, but link the native language word directly with the object that it represents. To do this properly, teachers must take active roles in the learning process-both asking and answering questions, reading aloud and so on. The target language learning process is, as with Gouin and Comenius, taken to be very much the same as the native language learning process. Teachers should preferably be native speakers of the language. Their task is to present the language, and to direct classroom activities. The language is presented through teachers' monologue, and the use of realia, or images or of representations of the objects and actions.
Successful teachers of the Direct Method need competence in their language/ stamina/ energy/ imagination/ ability and time to create own materials and courses-beyond capacity of all but gifted few. "The method by its very nature presupposes teachers of immense vitality, of robust health, one endowed with real fluency in the modern language they teach. They must be resourceful in the way of gestures and tricks of facial expression, able to sketch rapidly on the board and in the language teaching day, they must be proof against linguistic fatigue."
Learners are expected to become autonomous as quickly as possible, and so teachers would train learners to correct themselves. This could be done through offering the speaker a choice between what he has just said and another utterance. Or it could be that the mistake would be signaled by the teachers' repeating the utterance in a rising tone, or by stopping the repetition just before they get to the error.
It goes without saying that intelligibility is not the final aim of a correct pronunciation, but just a means to achieve communication. Foreign speakers need to be intelligible so that they can communicate. But communication involves more than simply sending a set of well-produced sounds into the air. To achieve communicative competence, students of a foreign language must be intelligible in an effective and efficient way, within the context of the given situation in which they might find themselves.
The Differences between an Intuitive-Imitative Approach and an Analytic-Linguistic Approach
Language learning strategies can be divided into two major classes, direct and indirect. Learning strategies that directly involve the target language are called direct strategies. They include memory strategies for remembering and retrieving new information, cognitive strategies for understanding and producing the language, and compensation strategies for using the language despite knowledge gaps. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, include metacognitive strategies for co-coordinating the learning process, affective strategies for regulating emotions, and social strategies for learning with others. They are called "indirect" because they support and manage language learning without directly involving the target language.
Whereas the material and the language of the grammar-translation class are based upon great literature and high principle, the Direct Method bases material on ordinary situation in which learners might expect to find themselves in going abroad-a lesson on the bank, the restaurant, or the hotel-or on subjects of ordinary conversation-geography, money, the weather. There is little attempt to construct a grammatical syllabus, and if there is any grammar teaching, it was inductive. In Grammar-translation, the activities of learners are limited to learning by heart, and to translating, either from the target language to the native language or the inverse. In the Direct classroom, no translation is allowed. Instead, learners are expected to listen, to answer questions, to work in pairs or groups on conversations, to write down dictations, once the written tongue has begun to be an object of study, and to write short passages. One of the driving ideas is to put learners in situations in which they are expected to produce the language.
Conclusion
Which method should we follow in order to teach English in the Official Schools of Languages? Is there just one method, or various? Are some methods better than others, or more appropriate given the characteristics of our pupils? All that has been previously mentioned brings us to a conclusion, albeit rather skeptical, but the only possible one: the need to be eclectic when choosing a method, to accept the good and positive elements of each methodological trend, and to collect together all that is most suitable given the situation and circumstances of our students. If we limit ourselves in an absolute way to a particular method, we run the risk of excluding other elements, of concentrating our efforts on one particular aspect of the language, (spoken or written, vocabulary, grammar, etc.) forgetting the other equally important aspects.
The Direct Method rejects use of the printed word, but this objection is illogical since second language learner has already mastered his reading skills. Does printed word interfere with FL pronunciation? In fact, experiments show that the printed word is of real help to consolidate the FL and actually reinforces retention-leaves mental imprint, image of shape of word. In indirect instruction, there can be a wonderful array of interactions, activities, and good "affect", but learners are still left to self-select most of what to take along and what to leave-until that first fateful encounter with standardized testing. Can we best facilitate that transition from indirect classroom interaction to more formal uses of language as found in the testing system by more overt, guided speaking practice, or is it better to concentrate more on providing learners with relevant input and occasions for communicative practice?