The direct method

The direct method

The direct method of teaching came as a response to the shortfalls of the grammar-translation method, which works to teach grammar and translate vocabulary from the native language of the student.

The direct method of learning English is fairly simple. In consists, primarily, of just five parts:

Show – The student is shown something so that they understand the word. For example, they might be shown visual aids such as flash cards for nouns. The teacher might use gestures to explain verbs, and so on.

Say – The teacher verbally presents the word or sentence, taking care to pronounce the word correctly.

Try – The student then tries to repeat what the teacher is saying.

Mold – The teacher corrects the students and ensures that they are pronouncing words correctly.

Repeat – Finally, the students repeat the word a number of times. Here the teacher uses a number of methods for repetition, including group repetition, single student repetition and other activities designed to get the students to repeat the word.

In Rosmery’s class it is found that she used this method, specially characterized by repeating, because she gives turns to repeat a word, also the class did a chorus . This strategy is mostly used to students realized pronunciation while they were reading professions.

Another important detail is  that Rosmery used word by word repeating , it means that she always tried to have a perfect pronunciation and intonation.

Advantages

Probably the biggest advantage of this method of teaching English is that it actually teaches the language and doesn’t teach about the language. Furthermore, due to its emphasis on speech, it is better for students who have a need of real communication in English. Finally, this method introduced the use of teaching vocabulary using common words.

Disadvantages

One major disadvantage for this method is that is works on the assumption that a second language is learnt exactly the same way as the first. Second language acquisition varies considerably from first language acquisition.

Another criticism of the direct method is that it was hard for public schools to integrate it. In his book, R. Brown (1994:56) explains that the direct method wasn’t successful in public schools because of “constraints of budget, classroom size, time, and teacher background (native speakers or native like fluency) made such a method difficult to use.”

Approaches and methods

In teacher programs.

Despite the changing status of approaches and methods in language teaching, the study of past and present teaching methods continues to form a significant component of teacher preparation programs. The reasons for this are the following: – The study of approaches and methods provides teachers with a view of how the field of language teaching has evolved. – Approaches and methods can be studied not as prescriptions for how to teach but as a source of well-used practices, which teachers can adapt or implement based on their own needs. – Experience in using different teaching approaches and methods can provide teachers with basic teaching skills that they can later add to or supplement as they develop teaching experience. This is the orientation we adopt toward the teaching approaches and methods described in this book. In order to understand the fundamental nature of methods in language teaching, however, it is necessary to conceptualize the notion of approach and method more systematically. This is the aim of the next chapter, in which we present a model for the description, analysis, and comparison of methods. This model will be used as a framework for our subsequent discussions and analyses of particular language teaching methods and philosophies.

In describing methods, the difference between a philosophy of language teaching at the level of theory and principles, and a set of derived procedures for teaching a language, is central. In an attempt to clarify this difference, a scheme was proposed by the American applied linguist Edward Anthony in 1963. He identified three levels of conceptualization and organization, which he termed approach, method, and technique: The arrangement is hierarchical. The organizational key is that techniques carry out a method which is consistent with an approach.... . . . An approach is a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language teaching and learning. An approach is axiomatic. It describes the nature of the subject matter to be taught.... . . . Method is an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no part of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach. An approach is axiomatic, a method is procedural. Within one approach, there can be many methods . . . . . . A technique is implementational – that which actually takes place in a classroom. It is a particular trick, stratagem, or contrivance used to accomplish an immediate objective. Techniques must be consistent with a method, and therefore in harmony with an approach as well. (Anthony 1963: 63–67) According to Anthony’s model, approach is the level at which assumptions and beliefs about language and language learning are specified; method is the level at which theory is put into practice and at which choices are made about the particular skills to be taught, the content to be taught, and the order in which the content will be presented; technique is the level at which classroom procedures are described.

Approach

- Design: objectives, syllabus, and content are determined; roles of teachers, learners, and instructional materials are specified

-Procedure: the implementation phase

Theory of language is structural view, the view that language is a system of structurally related elements for the coding of meaning.

The second view of language is the functional view, the view that language is a vehicle for the expression of functional meaning.