The Direct Method

Background
Principles
Critics
Natural Method Guidelines for teaching
Background

Gouin had been one of the first of
the nineteenth-century reformers
to attempt to build a methodology
around observation of child
language learning. Other reformers toward the end of the century
likewise turned their attention to
naturalistic principles of language
learning, and for this reason they
are sometimes referred to as
advocates of a "natural" method. In fact at various times throughout
the history of language teaching,
attempts have been made to make second language learning more like first language learning. In the sixteenth century, for example,
Montaigne described how he was
entrusted to a guardian who
addressed him exclusively in Latin
for the first years of his life, since
Montaigne's father wanted his son
to speak Latin well. Among those
who tried to apply natural
principles to language classes in the nineteenth century was L. Sauveur
(1826-1907), who used intensive
oral interaction in the target
language, employing questions as a way of presenting and eliciting
language. He opened a language
school in Boston in the late 1860s,
and his method soon became
referred to as the Natural Method.
Sauveur and other believers in the
Natural Method argued that a
foreign language could be taught
without translation or the use of
the learner's native tongue if
meaning was conveyed directly
through demonstration and
action . The German scholar F.
Franke wrote on the psychological
principles of direct association
between forms and meanings in the
target language (1884) and
provided a theoretical justification
for a monolingual approach to
teaching. According to Franke, a
language could best be taught by
using it actively in the classroom.
Rather than using analytical
procedures that focus on
explanation of grammar rules in
classroom teaching, teachers must
encourage direct and spontaneous
use of the foreign language in the
classroom. Learners would then be
able to induce rules of grammar.
The teacher replaced the textbook
in the early stages of learning.
Speaking began with systematic
attention to pronunciation. Known
words could be used to teach new
vocabulary, using mime,
demonstration, and pictures.
These natural language learning
principles provided the foundation
for what came to be known as the
Direct Method, which refers to the
most widely known of the natural
methods. 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.)

principles and
procedures:

1. Classroom instruction was
conducted exclusively in the target
language.

2. Only everyday vocabulary and
sentences were taught.

3. Oral communication skills were
built up in a carefully graded
progression organized around
question-and-answer exchanges
between teachers and students in
small, intensive classes.

4. Grammar was taught
inductively.

5. New teaching points were
introduced orally.

6. Concrete vocabulary was taught
through demonstration, objects,
and pictures; abstract vocabulary
was taught by association of ideas.

7. Both speech and listening
comprehension were taught.

8. Correct pronunciation and
grammar were emphasized.
These 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

Critics

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.
In addition, it lacked a rigorous
basis in applied linguistic theory,
and for this reason it was often
criticized by the more academically
based proponents of the Reform
Movement. The Direct Method
represented the product of
enlightened amateurism. It was
perceived to have several
drawbacks. First, it required
teachers who were native speakers
or who had nativelike 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 student's
native tongue would have been a
more efficient route to com­
prehension.
The Harvard psychologist Roger
Brown has documented similar
problems with strict Direct Method
techniques. He described his
frustration in observing a teacher
performing verbal gymnastics in an
attempt to convey the meaning of
Japanese words, when translation
would have been a much more
efficient technique to use.
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 techniques 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 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 recommendation was
that reading became the goal of
most foreign language programs in
the United States (Coleman 1929).
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.