Two methods of teaching foreign languages, the “Direct Method” and the “Grammar Translation Method” are described and compared. The underlying principles with main focus on acquisition of communicative skills and grammatical knowledge respectively are illustrated. Looking at possible results of either method we find that there is no gradual difference between them in the sense of better or worse, but that both have completely different targets. The suggestion is made to combine different methods in order to achieve multiple goals and to vary the emphasis according to individual goals.
The most ancient and probably most fundamental controversy in language teaching is the one between “Direct Method” and “Grammar Translation Method”. Both of these have totally different underlying approaches. For interested educational stakeholders or educators, there are two important questions, they should think of before looking for an appropriate method: What do I want the students to achieve? How can the learners reach this goal? One can think of different goals which should be reached by teaching a language and every teacher will want to cover most of them in their teaching. The emphasis however is very divers between the different approaches that have been developed over the years. And the most apparent difference, a completely different idea of how to teach language shows up between the two mentioned methods and their approaches respectively. This is why it is so interesting and exciting to compare these two methods and this is why I will try to tackle that task in this paper.
The first and main goal of teaching a language obviously is teaching the language. But here rises already the first question: What is the language that we want the learners to learn? Are we talking about skills in oral or written language? Is our focus more on active or passive language i.e. on speaking and writing or listening and reading respectively? Are we concerned about correctness or fluency? Does correctness mean formulating grammatically correct sentences or texts, does it refer to perfect pronunciation and intonation, are we talking about style aptly adapted to the contextual situation? And does fluency have to do with the speed of writing or speaking, with the ability to develop own ideas and own formulations while speaking or writing rather than using memorized phrases? Or do we want the learners to know about the language, understanding its structure, its roots, its development?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Goals of language teaching
2.1. Language related goals
2.2. Other goals of language teaching
3. Goals of DM and GTM with regard to language acquisition
3.1. The Direct Method
3.1.1. Development of the Direct Method
3.1.2. Features of the Direct Method
3.1.3. Language related goals of the Direct Method
3.1.4. Advantages and disadvantages of the method
3.2. The Grammar Translation Method
3.2.1. Development of the Grammar Translation Method
3.2.2. Features of the Grammar Translation Method
3.2.3. Language associated goals of the Grammar Translation Method
3.2.4. Advantages and disadvantages of the method
3.3. Comparison of the outcome of the two methods
4. Goals of language teaching beyond language acquisition
4.1. The Direct Method
4.1.1. Interactions in the classroom
4.1.2. General education goals of the Direct Method
4.2. The Grammar Translation Method
4.2.1. Interactions in the classroom
4.2.2. General education goals of the Grammar Translation Method
4.3. Comparison of the outcome of both methods with regard to general education goals
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the fundamental controversy between the Direct Method (DM) and the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) in language instruction. It aims to analyze the underlying pedagogical approaches, classroom dynamics, and educational goals associated with each method to determine how they shape the learner's outcome and development.
- Comparison of the historical development and core features of DM and GTM.
- Evaluation of language-related acquisition goals, specifically focus on communication versus grammatical structure.
- Examination of classroom interactions and the roles played by teachers and students.
- Analysis of general education goals, including the development of logical versus creative thinking.
- Synthesis of the methods as archetypal poles on a continuum of language teaching.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1.2. Features of the Direct Method
In the end of the 19th century the Direct Method was born with one strict rule: No use of the mother tongue was permitted! Celce-Murcia lists up the key features of this method (Celce-Murcia 2014): "Lessons begin with short dialogues and anecdotes in modern conversational style, actions and pictures are used to explain meaning" ("The words this and that are model words of the DM"(Chiniwar 2016), never the mother tongue is used), Grammar is not taught explicitly but learned inductively (according to Humboldt´s espousal that language cannot be taught but only better learning conditions can be provided), "literary texts are not analysed grammatically, but read for pleasure" (thus creating motivation), "the culture of the native language is taught also inductively"(Celce-Murcia2014). In the first lessons students are repeating given phrases and sentences, but very soon they should start to think in the target language, encouraged by tasks like telling their mates about their homes, their hobbies and so on. Severe mistakes are not corrected by the teacher but help is given for self-correction. All this has as precondition that the teacher is highly proficient in the target language. This last “conditio sine qua non” may not seem really relevant from the academic point of view, but in fact had great influence on the application of this method, as appropriate teachers could not always be found. (Uhnegbu complains that also appropriate teaching material fitting to the regional context is not always available (Uhnegbu et al.,2015), which however is part of the method, because the culture of the target language should be learned that way as well.)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the central controversy between the Direct Method and the Grammar Translation Method and sets the stage for comparing their underlying pedagogical approaches.
2. Goals of language teaching: Categorizes the diverse objectives of language instruction, distinguishing between language-specific skills and broader educational goals.
3. Goals of DM and GTM with regard to language acquisition: Provides a detailed comparison of how both methods address language learning, development, and their respective operational features.
4. Goals of language teaching beyond language acquisition: Analyzes the non-linguistic impacts of both methods, focusing on classroom interaction, student roles, and personality development.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes findings by suggesting that since both methods occupy different extremes, a combination is often recommended to meet varied individual learning goals.
Keywords
Direct Method, Grammar Translation Method, Language Teaching, Communicative Skills, Grammatical Competence, Inductive Learning, Deductive Learning, Language Acquisition, Classroom Interaction, Educational Goals, Foreign Language, Pedagogy, Language Teacher, Student Performance, Methodology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The work provides a comparative analysis of two prominent foreign language teaching approaches: the Direct Method and the Grammar Translation Method, examining their philosophies and impacts.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the historical development of these methods, their differing goals for language acquisition, their impact on classroom interaction, and their broader influence on a student's general education.
What is the main objective or research question of the study?
The study aims to explore what educators should consider when choosing a teaching method and how the goals of the learner—such as communication versus grammatical analysis—influence that choice.
Which scientific method is applied?
The paper utilizes a comparative analysis and literature-based review to contrast the features, outcomes, and underlying pedagogical theories of the two teaching methodologies.
What is treated in the main body of the paper?
The main body breaks down the linguistic and educational objectives of both methods, compares their specific classroom implementations, and concludes by situating them as archetypal extremes on a continuum.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Direct Method, Grammar Translation Method, communicative skills, grammatical competence, pedagogical approaches, and language acquisition.
How does the Direct Method approach grammar?
In the Direct Method, grammar is not taught explicitly through rules; instead, students are expected to develop an intuitive feel for grammatical correctness inductively through constant exposure and use.
What characterizes the classroom environment in the Grammar Translation Method?
It is a teacher-centered model where students are passive, interaction is limited, and learning involves the rote memorization of vocabulary lists and grammatical structures to analyze and translate complex texts.
How does the author characterize the two methods using mythology?
The author uses the archetypes of Prometheus (the forward-thinking, creative doer) to represent the Direct Method, and Epimetheus (the reflective, pondering thinker) to represent the Grammar Translation Method.
- Citar trabajo
- Bernd-Peter Liegener (Autor), 2017, A Comparison between "Direct Method" and Grammar "Translation Method". Different Language Teaching Methods, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/445397
