Merin Mathew

Dr. Arzuman Ara

ELE-131

March 31st, 2020

Exercise II

Compare and contrast between Grammar- Translation Method and Direct Method. What are
the merits of the Direct Method of language teaching?

Grammar Translation Method and Direct Method are two among the oldest methods for
teaching foreign languages or second language. Grammar Translation Method first appeared
in the 18th century and was originally used for teaching old languages like Greek, Latin then
failed in teaching communication skills. The method requires students to translate whole texts
word for word and memorize numerous grammatical rules and exceptions and enormous
vocabulary lists.  The goal of this method is to be able to read and translate literary
masterpieces and classics. Grammar Translation dominated European and foreign language
teaching from the 1840s to the 1940s, and in modified form it continues to be widely used in
some parts of the world today. To read literature in a target language and to memorize
grammar rules and vocabulary of the target language are the main objectives of this method.
The direct method of teaching was developed as a response to the Grammar-Translation
method. It sought to immerse the learner in the same way as when a first language is learnt.
All teaching is done in the target language and grammar is taught inductively. As a result of
that, there are many differences between the principles of these two methods as both of these
have totally different underlying approaches. The most apparent difference, a completely
different idea of how to teach language shows up between the two mentioned methods and
their approaches respectively.

As the focus of Grammar Translation Method is not to learn by heart but by brain, everything
has to be explained. Typically this is done by using the first language of the students. The
target language is not used for communicational issues. Grammatical structures are analysed,
grammar is learned deductively. Translations are performed and already at an early stage
difficult texts are read. As communication plays a minor role, the teacher needs a good
knowledge about the target language and its grammatical structures but does not have to be a
fluent speaker. This might be an advantage if there should be a shortage of fluently speaking
teachers.

The emphasis lies on understanding the target language, its structure, grammar and relation to
the first language in the Grammar Translation Method. Students do not have to become fluent
speakers of the target language, but should be able to deductively produce correct language.
Reading of difficult texts and their translation should be learned. Highly developed literacy is
the main goal while communication is not fostered. As result we can expect learners
instructed by this method to have good knowledge about the target language and its
grammatical structures, to be better in reading and writing than in speaking and listening and
to be able to produce correct items of language, especially in translations, even if this might
not be fluent. They will however possibly have problems to communicate in the target
language. The Grammar Translation Method is described as stultifying and tedious, thus
creating frustration and accused to reverse the natural learning process of a language.
Therefore, it is praised as a quick, easy and economical way of teaching, especially where a
large number of students have to be taught by one teacher. Translation is seen as a tool for
promoting transfer across languages. Students develop high grammatical competence which
is mainly achieved by the stress on reading instruction.

The Direct Method has as its primary goal competence in communication. The focus of
learning was the development of communicational skills. The Direct Method was born with
one strict rule of not using the mother tongue in instruction. Lessons begin with short
dialogues and anecdotes in modern conversational style, actions and pictures are used to
explain meaning. Grammar is not taught explicitly but learned inductively, literary texts are
not analysed grammatically, but read for pleasure thus creating motivation, the culture of the
native language is taught also inductively. 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 various tasks .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 condition 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.
The main focus of Direct Method lies on communication. A special emphasis is given to
spoken language rather than writing. Although active and passive skills are furthered there is
a certain bias in favour of speaking. Grammar is not dealt with deductively, but students are
expected to develop an intuitive feeling inductively. There is a clear stress on fluency,
pronunciation is trained from beginning. As condition for this talking in free speech there is
another stress on vocabulary rather than on grammatical structures. Pupils learn to
communicate in the language but do not get deeper information about the language. As an
outcome we can expect that learners who are taught by this method or rather fostered in their
acquisition will quickly develop a good command of the target language in means of
communication, will be better in oral production and comprehension than in writing and
reading, will only later achieve knowledge about grammatical structures of the language, but
will develop an unconscious feeling of grammatical correctness. Possibly they may have
problems in writing or analysing complicated texts, as reading is not a focus of this method
and texts used in the lessons are rather narrative than expository.

The most obvious advantage is that the learner achieves a good performance in the target
language and learns to think in it. Hence inappropriate translations are avoided. The student
will not be able to explain grammatical structures which might be a hindrance for self-
correction. In the beginning there might be a psychological barrier because of the completely
unknown language. This effect will be enhanced, if the culture of the two languages is very
different. The weakness in the Direct Method is its assumption that a second language can be
learnt in exactly the same way as a first, when in fact the conditions under which a second
language is learnt are very different.

The major difference between the Direct Method and The Grammar Translation method is
the goals of the teachers using them. In Grammar Translation Method, the teachers’
fundamental purpose is to help the students read and appreciate literature written in the target
language. To be able to do this, students have to learn a lot about the grammar rules and
vocabularies. On the contrary, the teachers who use the Direct Method intend that the
students learn how to communicate in the target language.

In a typical Grammar Translation Method class, students are taught to translate from one
language to another. They are also asked to memorize the native language equivalents for the
target language vocabulary words. In contrast, the native language should not be used in the
classroom in the Direct Method. The students need to associate the meaning and the target
language directly. To help the students to do this, the teacher demonstrates the meanings
through pictures, realia, or pantomime. In other words, translation is never used in this type
of class.

Another obvious difference between the two methods is the dealing with grammar. Whereas
grammar is taught deductively in the Grammar Translation Method, the Direct method uses
an inductively way so the students are given examples and they figure out the rules or
generalization from those examples. It might happen that the explicit grammar rule is never
given. In Grammar Translation method, grammar rules are presented with examples. The
students are asked to memorize those rules and then apply to other examples and exercises.

Due to the different teaching goals, there is a great disparity in teaching and learning
processes in the two methods. In Grammar Translation Method, teacher’s role includes
providing translation of new grammatical items, answering students’ questions about the
meaning of items, monitoring students’ work for grammatical accuracy and developing
translation activities. Students’ role includes learning and practising grammar rules and trying
out new grammar items .Common classroom activities in this method involves translation of
sentences from one language to another and writing sentences using the new grammar. In
Direct method, teacher’s role are related to tasks like presenting new items through the use of
questions and demonstration, monitoring students’ production for accuracy and avoiding the
use of the mother tongue. Students’ role involves listening and repeating and asking as well
as answering questions. Common classroom activities are constituted generally by drills and
repetition activities: question and answer activities.

Comparing the language related results of the two methods one could come to the conclusion
that DM- students will be very good communicators especially in oral situations, who may
commit errors in favour of fluency but don´t know much about the language, while GTM-
students will be perfect grammarians and translators who can´t really use the language in
every day communication.