Direct method

The Direct Method developed towards the end of the 19th century. It was in react
ion to the teaching methods of the ancient Grammar Translation Method which prod
uced knowledge about language rather than knowledge of language. The general goa
l of the Direct Method is to provide learners with a practically useful knowledg
e of language. They should learn to speak and understand the target language in
everyday situations.
This method is based mainly on linguistic principles of inductive analogy, exper
imental psychology, and naturalistic methods of education. The direct method imi
tated the way that children learn their first language, highlighting the avoidan
ce of translation and the direct use of the foreign language as the medium of in
struction in all situations (Holitzer, 2000).
It is arguable whether the Direct Method was a distinct method or a general con
cept, a shorthand for various ‘treatments’, some of which, like Phonetic Method,
were designated by their designers as method in themselves. However, since the
se ‘treatments’ and associated methods share more common features than differenc
es, and are based on the same general approach, it is convenient to refer to the
m collectively as ‘the Direct Method’. Therefore, Direct Method should be interp
reted as having variant applications (Jonson & Jonson, 1999). Natural method, or
al method, phonetic method and psychological method were some of the substitute
names of the direct method (Holitzer, 2000).
As the Grammar Translation Method was not very effective in preparing students t
o use the target language communicatively, the Direct Method became popular. It
is named Direct Method due to its premise that meaning is connected directly wit
h the target language without going through the process of translating into the
students’ native language. (Sarosdy et al. 2006).
Holitzer (2000) maintains that everyday vocabulary and structure of the language
were considered as the crucial needs of the students. The method emphasized the
introduction of phonetics and the spoken variety of the language. In this metho
d, concrete meanings of linguistic items are introduced through lessons involvin
g objects, and abstract meanings are introduced through the association of ideas
.
Grammar is not taught explicitly and deductively as in Grammar Translation Metho
d, but is learnt mainly through practice. Students should make generalizations a
bout the grammatical structure by an inductive process through reflecting on wha
t they have been learning (Rivers, 1968).
According to Holitzer (2000, p. 176) the main principles of Direct Method typic
ally involve:
The use of the foreign language as a medium of instruction. Translation
is totally avoided.
Learning of a foreign language is similar to that of first language acqu
isition. Imitation and an artificial language environment are needed in the clas
sroom.
Language teaching is focused on the sentence level with vocabulary of da
ily routine, oral communication and grammar learnt by induction.
Oral communication skills are built up in a carefully graded progression
. They are organized around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and s
tudents in small but intensive classes.
New language points are to be introduced orally. Concrete vocabulary is
taught through demonstration of objects and pictures; abstract vocabulary is tau
ght through association of ideas and concepts.
Both listening comprehension and speaking ability are encouraged. And co
rrect pronunciation and inductively acquired grammatical knowledge are insisted
upon.
Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 12) point out that these principles can be seen i
n the following guidlines for teaching oral language:
• Never translate: demonstrate;
• Never explain: act;
• Never make a speech: ask questions;
• Never imitate mistakes: correct them;
• Never speak with single words: use sentences;
• Never speak too much: make students speak much;
• Never use the book: use your lesson plan;
• Never go too fast: keep the pace of the students;
• Never speak slowly: speak normally;
• Never speak too quickly: speak naturally;
• Never speak too loudly: speak naturally; and
• Never be impatient: take it easy.
Critiques
The Direct Method was rather successful in private language schools where paying
clients had high motivation and the use of native-speaking teachers was the nor
m. But, as Brown (2001) argued, any method can almost be successful when clients
are motivated.
Direct Method was difficult to implement in public secondary school education du
e to the limitations in budget, classroom size, time, and teacher background (Br
own, 2001; Richards &Rodgers, 2001). It also exaggerated and distorted the simil
arities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom foreign langu
age learning. It also failed to consider the practical realities of the classroo
m. Besides, it didn t have a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory, so it
was often disparaged by the more academically based advocates of the Reform Move
ment. The Direct Method "represented the product of enlightened amateurism" (Ric
hards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 13).
Holitzer (2000) argued that the method makes it very hard to convey the
semantics or to teach grammar because of the absence of translation. It can be p
racticed only in classrooms where the number of students is limited, because som
e activities involved in the method may not be applicable to larger groups of le
arners.
Generally it is difficult to find a native speaker to teach the foreign lang
uage. Also, it difficult to believe that the learning conditions of the native l
anguage could be recreated in the foreign language classrooms. The method was on
ly suitable for teaching younger pupils rather than adults. The method depends t
oo much on the qualification of the teacher rather than on a textbook (Birjandi
et al. 2006; Holitzer, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Sarsody et al. 2006; Ster
n, 1983).
The Direct Method enjoyed great popularity at the end of the nineteenth century
and the beginning of the twentieth but due to its drawbacks, mainly constraints
of budget, time, and classroom size, it has been revived leading to the emergenc
e of the Audio-lingual Method.