TESOL FINAL EXAM

Throughout this semester, we learned about different approaches and

methods used to teach English to speakers of other languages. In this
paper, I will try to compare the Direct Method (the most widely known of
the natural approaches) with the Oral Approach, which is mainly based on
the first one. The objective of both approaches was to teach students to
think in the target language and to communicate naturally with it.
During the nineteenth century, linguists had begun to concentrate on child
language learning and tried to build a methodology out of observations. All
through history, several attempts have been made on making second
language learning a lot like first language learning. Linguists Saveour and
Frank provided justification for a monolingual approach to teaching and
according to the second one, teachers had to encourage direct and
spontaneous use of the target language. The Direct Method was then
introduced and its basic principle was exclusive use of the target language
in the classroom; this demanded native or native-like teachers and the
entire course depended on their skills rather than on textbooks. This
approach was well established and accepted in private language institutes
in France and Germany and later on in the United States (Berlitz), but
started declining in noncommercial schools around 1920. Linguists once
more started questioning if this method had enough methodological basis
to achieve natural and successful communication in the target language
and got to the conclusion that it lacked rigorous basis in applied linguistics
and thus rather amateur. After the Coleman Report, reading became the
goal of most learning programs in the United States. A few years later, a
group of linguists began another study to build a more scientific
foundation for an approach to teach English. The result was a systematic
study of the principles and procedures that could be applied to the
selection and organization of the content of a language course. The Oral
Approach began in its early stage.
Through the Direct Method, only everyday vocabulary sentences were
taught; after Harold Palmer and S. Hornbys study, and taking into account
the increased emphasis on reading skills, vocabulary became one of the
most important aspects when learning a foreign language. Studies show
that the knowledge of words that occurred constantly on texts would
greatly assist the reading of foreign languages; this was called Principles
of Vocabulary Control. Choosing vocabulary content of the course (instead
of teaching only everyday language) became the first attempt to establish
principles of syllabus design.
Now, there was an interest to carefully select the
and grammar was seen as the underlying sentence
language. Grammar (resembling in the Direct
inductively and major grammatical structures
sentence patterns (substitution tables).

content of the course

patterns of the spoken
Method) was taught
were classified into

The theory of language of both methods gave vast importance to the

speaking skill and input was always provided orally; also, the spoken
language in the classroom was the target language. Vocabulary taught
through the Direct Method was supposed to be acquired naturally and
pronunciation was worked on from day one. The Oral Approach similarly
considers speech as the basis of language but includes structure patterns

as the heart of the speaking ability. The knowledge of these structures

must be linked to a situation where the learner can use them. All materials
used would be based on 4 concepts: word order, structural words,
inflections of English and content words.
The learning theory of the Oral Approach focused on the process of
learning rather than on the conditions; that process had 3 main steps:
receiving the knowledge, fixing it by repetition and then using it until it
becomes a personal skill. The Direct Method tried to make students think
in the target language as soon as possible. Since the spoken language in
the classroom was the target language, students had to deduce meaning
of words as well as the grammatical structure of sentences. One of the
most criticized aspects of this approach was the fact that the teacher
could not use the learners native language at all and regularly a lot of
time was wasted trying to make students guess what the teacher wanted
to convey; with the Oral Approach, meaning of words came from the use
of them in a situation created by the teacher.
Both Direct Method and Oral Approach rely on visual aids, the Direct
Method used them for concrete vocabulary (were as for abstract
vocabulary was taught through association of ideas) and in the Oral
Approach they were considered a crucial aspect of teaching/learning.
Teacher is the center of these approaches; he or she is expected to be a
master of the textbook and any other materials used throughout the
course. A teacher following the Direct Method had to have exceptional
skills and be a native speaker, he or she was the director of the class
activity and had to work with question and answer exercises paying
careful attention to pronunciation and grammar. In addition to the previous
points, a teacher using the Oral Approach had to model situations for the
students to use the language; commands and useful cues were utilized to
correct. It could be said that the teacher is essential for the success of
both methods.
Learners are quite passive on both methods but just a dash less on the
Oral Approach. The Direct Method makes students work like partners with
the teacher in the teaching/learning process and they are trained to
answer questions were as on the Oral Approach, students repeat
questions, answers and commands and after some time, they are
expected to produce on their own but always in controlled situations.
Materials used (like visual aids) are crucial for both methods, particularly
on the Direct Method since the teacher needs them to demonstrate
meaning. Other materials employed are books, realia, pictures, flashcards,
stick figures, etc.
As said before, the Direct Method declined during the 1920s and from that
point the Oral Approach was created. The Situational Approach is
considered to be an extension of the Oral Approach and it continues to be
part of the standard set of procedures used in many British methodology
texts still used in many parts of the world.