Reflective Journal 1

What are the strengths and weaknesses of GTM and DM? Give a statement and elaborate. It is better to pick one or two points and go in depth rather than make a big list and not give details. Demonstrate that you have really thought about the issue instead of just rewriting or copying ideas from the textbook.

Place your answers in the comment section below.

You can read and elaborate off of another classmates' comments. I don't want to see a lot of repetition. Hint: if you answer early them you get the benefit of starting and picking discussions. If you write later you get the benefit of having others' comments available to reflect on.

Due Friday, 16th at midnight.    
Upvote Upvoted 0

Comments

Tim Fung
I guess I'll have to start this journal assignment. I'm not exactly sure if this is what you are looking for. Please tell me if I should make corrections.

Although the Direct Method has merit for emphasizing a spontaneous use of language, some students may find the lack of structure frustrating. On the other hand Grammar Translation Method uses strict guidelines of structure, but has no room for spontaneous speech. The more effective method depends on the ultimate goal of the students in the classroom. If the student wants to be able to carry on a natural conversation with a native English speaker, then he or she may benefit more from a Direct Method approach. However, if the student needs to pass a standardized test consisting of grammar and vocabulary, then the Grammar Translation Method will greatly improve their chances of passing. Finding a way to combine the beneficial properties of both methods into a single class would be the most efficient way to satisfy both groups of students. Since these methods differ so greatly, it is important to state that these methods would be used in the same class, not necessarily at the same time.

Erica Ko
I agree with Tim, that a classroom could have both GTM and DM. Each method has a specific focus, and each method meets its focus well. DM focuses on communication skills to be fluent in the target language, while GTM focuses on more passive skills, which are reading and listening. Although GTM doesn’t emphasize practicing speaking, which would be ideal for learners planning to go abroad or stay in CA and meet other people who speak the target language, it creates the foundation for a language learner to be able to speak the language, using the rules and grammar they learned to be applied to oral communication. The DM focuses on more real-life, authentic vocabulary and to be able to survive conversations with speakers of the target language, but it is difficult to implement without the monetary resources or skilled native teachers. But if DM’s focuses were fused with GTM’s, then using both methods in the classroom could be effective. Students could learn how to form sentences, and then practice speaking them and applying them to situations that could be found in reality. Even if the students learned language that was not so authentic, it could help the student, even if just minimally, by expanding their vocabulary, complexity and competence in the target language.
Ka-Yan Lee (Anna)
As Tim and Erica already mentioned, whether a teacher should apply the Grammar Translation Method or the Direct Method depends on the students’ needs. For instance, if you are teaching a classroom of ESL students, it would definitely be more beneficial to teach them material that applies to their everyday life through the Direct Method. Spending class time strictly analyzing grammatical rules and translating sentences will not do much for these students. However, another point that should be taken into consideration is the socioeconomic status of the students. Due to its demanding nature, the Direct Method can be expensive. This factor may make it inaccessible for students of low-income neighborhoods. These students may go to schools that are not be able afford native or native-like teachers. Also, due to budget deficits their schools may have to fit a large number of students in one class. Being that the Direct Method requires a small, intensive classroom makes it impossible to implement in these settings. On the other hand, the Grammar Translation Method requires minimal material. It can be easily employed in large classrooms. I believe these pragmatic factors should also be looked upon when comparing the two methods.
Matthew Hwang
I personally believe Direct Method and the GTM are both very useful in learning second language. The key is to mix and match according to the students. GTM works very well in creating a strong foundation for students, whereas Direct Method can be used to solidify GTM's grammar-focused-but-not-so-practical approaches. As a teacher, I feel more comfortable using DM compared to GTM, but grammar is something that needs to be drilled to a non-native learner, and I believe it needs more attention than just indirect/inductive teaching methods. I believe these two will work great together, just as Audiolingual Method and Total Physical Response works well together.
Christian Niedermayer
In complete agreement with my classmates about GTM and Direct Method on opposites sides of the spectrum. GTM is superior when it comes to grammar in a target language and translating it into one's native language. Its convenient that anybody using GTM can teach a foreign language without the ability of speaking. As for its weakness it fails in speaking and listening to the target language.
Direct Method has an extreme focus with oral communication to create and maintain dialogue. Everything is taught orally with a stress on inductive grammar learning, resulting in excellent speaking and listening skills. In order to carry out these daily lessons it requires a lot more resources than GTM. Above comments has mentioned the significantly smaller rooms and naive teachers, or fluent speakers, are required to teach all lessons. Not only is the logistics an issue but the ability of understanding rules of grammar is hindering to a learner especially for standardized exams. Both methods do have their flaws and strengths but in understanding these characteristics can allow us to give the students the necessary tools for language.
Mika Nagashima
I completely agree, but I’d also like to point out the feasibility of using these methods. As we stated, GTM does not necessarily require a teacher who is fluent in the target language, as it relies mostly on repetitive translation. Also, DM is best in focused, small groups where the teacher is either native or extremely fluent, at the very least, the target language is imbued in the classroom. However, from an economist’s point of view, how available are these resources to certain classrooms? I believe that GTM may be widely used solely due to the low skills that the teacher needs to possess. It may not be the best way of learning another language, but it is certainly easiest on the administrator’s end. Furthermore, DM requires a high-level teacher that is expected to be completely hands-on in the teaching process. The level of dedication and energy that is required for this methodology is extreme. It is also perhaps a scarcity in certain areas of the world. That is not to say that each method does not have its strong points. Since we delegate the task of arduous translation to GTM methods, we cannot say that anytime we use a translation task in class, we do not borrow these GTM ideas. Suffice to say, DM is also integrated into a functional classroom, where authentic language may be produced and the target language is easily accessible. Blending these two ideas, such that the students are surrounded by the target language, but also informed of the grammatical logistics of the intended language, seems to be the ideal way of conducting a classroom.
John Capuchino
I haven't had the opportunity to teach either DM or GTM. After covering GTM in the classroom, I've been left with the impression that there really isn't another teaching method that is more mundane. But that is only a first impression. I think Mathew Hwang is correct; certainly there is a place for GTM in the classroom.
Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I believe I see a correlation between DM and an immersion program that requires the language learner to live in a country where that language is spoken. It seems to me that aside from cost and time efficiency, DM is an incredibly good method to provide in the classroom.
jeffleedeuci
I believe that we need to consider the goals of our students before we judge any method that we are introduced to. Anna addressed this issue with her post. Our program definitely advocates communicative language theory, a position I agree with as well. However, GTM and DM are not without their own benefits. I believe that GTM's greatest strength is preparing students for reading comprehension. This strength fosters aspects that are not exactly addressed by CLT such as reading a newspaper in a foreign language, something that does not require you (the reader) to communicate with anybody else. Likewise, DM concentrates on the listening aspect of language. Listening to a native speaker is greatly enhanced when the native speaker is actually there speaking to you. This is a pitfall of many CLT activities that have students listening to other students. Again, these benefits are all dependent on the needs of the students.
javierramirezjr
Something I think is important to mention is cultural differences while learning. As Jeff pointed out each method can be effective depending on the type of class and its goals. GTM is great for reading comprehension but from my experiences in high school, it doesn't allow for fluent and authentic language production. Direct translations can only go so far in regards to communication especially when most of the learning materials are written. The Direct Method seems a lot more beneficial given the goals are communication and spoken language exposure. Since the classes are taught by a native speaker, the students can orient themselves with the target language with authentic usage lessons. Having the students speak offers a lot more opportunity to practice much like children do when developing a first language. The different approaches have their benefits for certain conditions but overall I believe the Direct Method has a lot more merit in comparison to GTM. They aren't as comprehensive or modern as the psychologically based CLT but they each have brought useful concepts and ideas to foreign language teaching.
Sara Newton
I believe that all of my classmates have valid points about each method, I think that GTM is a way to start off language classes because it is what the students know and have become accustomed to. Whereas with DM it is a completely different learning environment, if the students are uncomfortable with this method they might not learn as well. As Anna mentioned earlier also about socio-economic circumstances if a person can afford to pay for that type of intensive training then of course they will learn a language, but it doesn't mean that it is the best method for lower/middle class citizens. I think the best approach is to combine the methods as several people have mentioned earlier. I think it is important to build a foundation (especially for adult learners) so that they will feel better prepared to try and speak in the target language.
harrymin
According to the textbook, definte weaknesses of GTM is putting tremendous focus on teaching grammar and practicing translation which lead to fluency on reading and writing skills only. For instance, a lot of university students in Asian countries are weak in terms of speaking and listening skills. DM was developed after GTM, because of limitations of GTM. DM's strenghths are speaking and listening skills due to dependence on target language's drills, repetition, and etc. Although GTM is not effective for person who would like to be fluent on speaking skill, it is very useful to understand english language. Therefore, it is necessary for typical Second Language Aquisition student to study GTM and DM together to be proficient in English Language.
Catherine Hsieh
My classmates all make valid points in assessing which method to use. I've had a friend who had a foreign teacher that was not native to the language and their teaching methods were that of GTM so it consisted of associating pictures with words,grammar translation, defining vocabulary and relied heavily on repetition.The school was pretty lucrative and yet they still opted for this type of teaching method, despite their high SES status. I learned my foreign language through DM and I found that the use of oral/listening comprehension and practice of commonly used sentences were very helpful, even up to this day. Many students I knew learned the language to better communicate with their families and relatives so everyday sentences would serve a better use. Plus, having a native teacher who is more familiar with the country can spread cultural knowledge to enhance the language learning experience. Each method has positive and negative attributes but I believe that GM encompasses all the points of GTM while also placing a strong emphasis on spoken language which is very important when learning a new language. How is it useful if learning all the grammar points, memorizing the vocabulary, and practicing the structures of a sentence can't even get one through a normal conversation? GTM is a great starting block for learning the logistics of language but DM would be more useful in fluency and listening.
Hee Brandon Kim
Throughout the past several weeks we have discussed about GTM and DM in number of our classes. I think from what we have learned, it is safe to say that compare to GTM, DM is much more effective when producing a natural and communicative foreign language skills. However, as Mika has mentioned earlier in her post, it is important for us to look at why the shift in style of methods are taking place. I believe that until recently, not many native English speakers were spread throughout the world to teach DM to their students. Perhaps until couple decades ago, the only English teacher that the students were given were from that country that have just studied English. So when an individual that has learned English as a second language taught, there weren't enough opportunities to practice DM and instead it just made more sense to use GTM to teach their class. However, now that there are plenty of English teachers working in foreign countries, I believe that GTM will eventually fade away completely.
Claire
My opinion is that GTM and Direct are both ineffective on their own for the opposite reasons: GTM because you learn the forms without using them, and Direct because you're trying to use things you haven't really been taught.

Total immersion is of course the end goal, but would be extremely frustrating for beginners or the intermediate. Often in Japanese classes when the teacher explained advanced grammatical constructs in Japanese, I wouldn't be able to pay full attention to the concept because half of my brain's gears were engaged in trying to understand the words the teacher was using to describe it. Sometimes the balancing act would break down and I'd give up on understanding it at all. It sounds admirable to say, "I'm teaching entirely in the target language" and try to talk around what a word means in that language instead of just translating it, but it takes a lot of time to give a fuzzy idea of the word instead of a half second to give a clear one.

GTM is obviously not very useful on its own, but clearly explaining vocabulary and grammar in the language your students speak before trying to do conversation and activities is essential, though it becomes less so as your students become more advanced and able to understand extended explanations in the target language.

omjih
Claire, you took the words right out of my mouth. I absolutely agree with you that even though it is a good idea to utilize the target language as frequently as possible, sometimes overdoing it can produce unforeseen inefficiencies. A case in point: one of my Spanish teachers back in high school made a really strong point at the beginning of the school year to only teach in Spanish. My teacher really tried to hold herself accountable to this rule, but it soon became apparent that when introducing the finer aspects of more advanced Spanish grammar, English was undeniably more efficient and we as students were able to grasp the concepts much quicker. I feel that this example underscores the weaknesses of limiting yourself to only one teaching method.
But in terms of comparing GTM to DM, I think everyone has already made it clear that GTM's main weakness is that its exclusive use leads to a more structural/mechanical knowledge of language. This is especially detrimental if the purpose of learning the language is to achieve oral proficiency. However, by the same token, GTM does its intended job very well, which is to teach structural/mechanical grammar. As for DM, its main weakness is its cost of implementation. But DM makes up for its additional cost and resources through its ability to better teach students practical language. I want to reinstate Catherine's point that GTM can provide a great foundation and thus has high value for beginning language learners, but DM is much more useful in cultivating a realistic and more applicable knowledge of a language once students progress beyond the basics.
Hang Nguyen
I agree with many of the comments above, that blending these two methods would yield better results. However, both of these methods are inefficient. GTM instills grammar within the students, but does not allow for application and use of the target language. Students are unable to apply their knowledge in real life situations and practice authentic language due to the heavy emphasis on direct translations and grammar. On the other hand, the DM bombards students with the target language and expects them to understand the abstract ideas and concepts. As Claire states that immersion in the target language is beneficial, students still require the grammar foundation to truly grasp the target language. GTM and the DM, both, provide different support for the acquisition of a second language, but their weaknesses make them ineffective.
chrismcq
I really don't see any benefit to GTM other than efficiency. It's true that it could be used if the students need to learn grammar very quickly in order to pass a test, but I think that any student could learn even the most complex grammatical rules, given enough time and instruction, by the direct method. It is also true that, using the direct method, students will not be able to read a complex passage in the target language and understand everything, word for word, even after a few years of instruction. They might understand better and faster through exhaustive grammar exercises, grammar explanations in the native language, and translation. But that's OK. Any student learning a foreign language needs to cope with a degree of doubt and uncertainty about the exact meaning of some words and phrases. I think GTM should only be used out of necessity, because of constraints of time or money or materials. If all those variables are provided for, I think the direct method beats GTM on all counts.
momorisa
As an English learner from Japan where GTM is still widely adapted, let me share my two daughter's experience here first. My daughters are 16 and 11 years old, and they came here about a year ago. The elder one almost finished Junior high school and came here. That means she had covered basic grammar rules at school through GTM for about three years.
11 years old had no prior experience in English before, that she didnt know any basic rules of grammar nor much voccabulary.
At first, they both struggled with English, especially listeing and in speaking, but eventually, younger one seemed like catching the words better. But after a while, maybe some part because she had no classmates from Japan, 16 years old caught up very quick and now she maybe speaks better than 11 years old.
I translate this situation as a student who had learned English through GTM and in Direct Method. My elder daughter learned through GTM, later immersion of the Direct Method. Youger daughter learned through the Direct Method mostly.
These facts indicate that either of each method only doesn`t work well.
As Claire stated on her comments, GTM lacks authentic and gratly lacks to train speaking and listening ability, but these grammars later help the students to understand resonably and more deeply about the context and content of the languge. The Direct Method only may help students to survive here with pivot conversation, but as it lacks of any rules or reasons, students get confused later.
As my other classmates stated, I also agree that GTM or the Direct Method only does not work well independently. I believ the mixture of the each Method and when and where to use them effectively is the key
Luke Brunda
In high school, I took 4 years of Latin which were taught exclusively in the GTM method. We were given huge packets of ancient prose or poetry to translate. The teacher would go over the translations to make sure we had an understanding of the grammar and an accurate translation before we were handed another packet to translate.

Not once were we required to actually speak using the language or listen to Latin. The best students could list off a hundred different forms of every verb, identifying the passive paraphrastic with a gerundive of obligation - but were likely unable to say "Hello, my name is, how are you." I don't think we ever went over that vocabulary, actually - it was never in our packets that were required for the AP Tests, but we did know the word for "to move in an oar like motion, rotating as you make a circle to push things away from you."

The sentiment that most students received was that it was useless. This style of teaching is probably part of the problem with the view of Latin as a "dead language" - nobody speaks it. I couldn't use it as a form of communication.

In contrast, I've tried some DM (Berlitz-like) programs. It seems in many ways the polar opposite - I can say things clearly, but have little comprehension of either what or why I am saying something.

I get the impression that, while GTM emphasizes understanding and meaning, DM emphasizes capability and communication. They aren't necessarily opposite strategies; a classroom could use the benefits and efficiencies of GTM to develop reading and writing skills, and still be able to incorporate elements of DM into speaking and listening activities.

Too heavily relying on either strategy would hamper learning and the classroom with the faults of each method.

courtneyl245
I agree with Chris, I don't really see the strengths of GTM. However, I do think it provides a lot of structure. I just don't see how translating sentences from your first language to the target language is beneficial. Grammar structures and certain words are very different in each language so it may be difficult to translate sentences accurately. Also, GTM only focuses on writing and reading, there is little to no listening or speaking involved. It also does not provide a student with authentic language, most of what is translated are sentences that will never be used. Also, GTM is not very practical. What other situation, besides in a classroom, will you be required to look at a sentence in your first language and have to translate it on paper into the target language. Direct Method, like many have previously posted, is the complete opposite. There is no structure and and it's difficult to find an assessment or placement that everyone, who teaches DM, agrees on. There is no set curriculum or guideline when teaching DM. With the Direct Method, however, there is a lot of speaking involved and a student is immersed into the language. This is beneficial if speaking is the goal of the student. Unlike GTM, the Direct Method has little or no writing and reading activities - it is mostly speaking and listening. Like what most have said earlier, combining these two methods may be more beneficial than them working independently.
SandyARose
Looks like I’m just about the last poster here (or close to the last one!). I skimmed a bit through the earlier posts – but I read the last three in full so I’ll just pick a few that stuck out for me (maybe I’ll agree or disagree with a few…) and respond to those.

@Luke: Your post is pretty much exactly what I had thought to write - minus the whole Latin deal… The course I did take (and completely forgot) was Spanish. I think this had to do partially with my level of motivation and partially with the fact that most of the classes dealt in rote memorization and GTM. Also, many of the beginning teachers were clearly not native/fluent speakers of Spanish.

One teacher I remember in particular – Mrs. Allah – was African, her first language was French, her second language was English, and her THIRD language was Spanish – you could literally not understand a thing she was saying, but she got through the same lessons that the other Spanish teachers did and I got just about the same grades.

I completely agree that a balance is necessary for these two things. If we had a teacher who spoke to us regularly in Spanish (with the proper accent) and forced us to converse in Spanish, I think things might have been a little bit different. For ex – in college, I took a Spanish course that was taught entirely in

@Claire: I agree with you that it would certainly be (and is!) difficult to teach complex grammar in the target language.

There’s a give and a take for both sides: If you explain it in the L1, you lose the practice in the target language; if you explain it in the L2, you waste valuable time and may end up frustrating the student. Personally, I think that sometimes frustration is just a part of learning – you can continue practicing and practicing and eventually you’ll get better. I think it’s important to give students building blocks to minimize the level of frustration that they face while learning.

Personally, I feel the immersion technique is the most appealing but I could see how using the L1 sparingly could be beneficial…what do you think?

I would have the fear that the L1 would become a crutch for the students if we use it too often in class. I think about it this way: if a student were in the L2 country, would they be able to resort to English? Or would it be more beneficial that they circumnavigate in the L2?

I think it would be better that I force them to circumnavigate the topic/vocabulary/whatever they don’t know while IN my class, so that they are better prepared for what happens outside my class.

@Mika: You brought up a good point that works in defense of GTM – cost effectiveness. I’m sure that the vast majority of the language teachers in my high school cost the school less simply because they were not native speakers of the language! DM might just not be practical in some instances (like public school) - teachers who don’t speak the target language wouldn’t even be able to teach in DM in the first place.

@Momo: The comparison between your daughters' learning styles is really interesting!!

@Chris and @Brandon: Do you think GTM might be useful in understanding the structure of English? You both kind of said that GTM is going to disappear or isn’t useful at all. I thought this was interesting in comparison to Harry’s comment – he seemed to think it was pretty useful for him.

I think we’re supposed to be discussing so I’ll check back and respond if anyone writes me back! :)

Natalie Larriva
Profuse apologies for my late post. There is no excuse except to say it completely left my mind this weekend. Anyway, as the very LAST person to post it's difficult to bring new material to the table which has already offered all the finest points I could add to the discussion. I think to summarize it is agreed upon that GTM is probably the most useless way to actually learn a language with the intent of speaking. In latter days when this method was popularized the emphasis was more on trans-national business and less on travel and actual exchange. Despite the cost effectiveness or helpfulness alongside another method, I agree with many of my classmates when I say that straight GTM is not the way to learn language today. That being said, we see elements of GTM hidden in other methods, and it is not without its uses when employed in conjuncture with other methods.
In contrast to this is the Direct Method (DM) which had been applied with great success in many schools around the world (Berlitz). Emphasis on oral interaction instead of written translation of antiquated texts seems like a more natural and useful way to employ and develop authentic language usage. The points against this method brought up by my classmates are valid: unrealistic in a public school setting, more costly than other methods, and the necessity of a native speaker of the target language makes this method more practical in a private setting. I agree with Sandy when she said that the immersion technique is the one which will garner the most results. In speaking with my conversation partners from Brazil, Korea, and others who are here to learn English, they tell me that the language they learned in school did not prepare them to come to America and speak fluently or accurately. Being here and having to use English daily is the most effective method for their language learning process, and I agree that unless a new language is absolutely necessary, learning will be slow and awkward. Hopefully in our classrooms we can incorporate all the best these methods have to offer to create a learning environment which is achievable and practical.

Add a comment

Add Website URL »