The direct method was a reaction to the grammar-translation method and focused on using only the target language in instruction. It emphasized spoken language and taught vocabulary through demonstration and pictures before introducing grammar inductively. Some key figures who adopted this approach were Gottlieb Heness, Lambert Sauveur, and Maximilian Berlitz, who founded language schools using these principles. The direct method's strengths included following a natural learning process and emphasizing communication skills, while weaknesses included a lack of structural practice and risk of incorrect rule induction.

1. DIRECT
APPROACH

2. BACKGROUND:
During the 1850’s to 1900, Europe experienced a trend
away from the grammar-translation method, based on the
notion that it was not achieving the desired results.
Reformers were responding to a need for better language
teaching methods in a time of industrial expansion and
international trade and travel. The resulting reforms went
under a variety of names such as the natural method and
the phonetic method, but ultimately all were categorized
under the name the "Direct Method". In more recent times
the Direct Method, which almost disappeared as a distinct
method during the early 1930’s, has become a tool for
aiding the beginning stages of teaching a language rather
than for advanced language learners

3. The direct-method approach to language teaching (also
known as both the natural method and the
conversational method) came about as a reaction to the
grammar-translation approach. Whereas the grammar-
translation approach was organized around a step-by-
step method of learning the rules of a language, often
through the use of the first language, the direct-method
approach was based on the idea that learners can best
learn what is “natural” to them and that an aural/oral
system of teaching them was appropriate for this
purpose. This aural/oral method relied for its
effectiveness on the use of monolingual teaching, that
is, the L2 was the only language used in the class by the
teacher and students.

4. The tenets of the direct-method approach are summarized by
Richards and Rogers (2001) as follows:
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 through
association of ideas.
7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

5. Gottlieb Heness and Lambert Sauveur were two of the
first teachers to adopt the direct-method approach in their
teaching in the late nineteenth century in the United
States (see Howatt 1984). Heness and Sauveur opened a
language school to teach German and French using a
system similar to that described earlier.

6. The direct-method approach was adopted and made
popular by Maximilian Berlitz (1852–1921). Berlitz
founded a chain of language schools, prepared teaching
materials, and had the native-speaker instructors in the
schools use a direct-method approach in teaching the
students. The idea behind what was called the Berlitz
method was that it was “simple, systematic, ordered,
and replicable”

7. CHARACTERISTICS:
 refrains from using the learners' native language
 uses only the target language.
 teaching vocabulary through pantomiming, real-life
objects and other visual materials
 teaching grammar by using an inductive approach (i.e.
having learners find out rules through the presentation of
adequate linguistic forms in the target language)
 centrality of spoken language (including a native-like
pronunciation)
 focus on question-answer patterns
 teacher-centering
 Classroom instructions are conducted exclusively in the
target language.

8.  Only everyday vocabulary and sentences are taught during the
initial phase; grammar, reading and writing are introduced in
intermediate phase.
 Oral communication skills are built up in a carefully graded
progression organized around question-and-answer exchanges
between teachers and students in small, intensive classes.
 Grammar is taught inductively.
 New teaching points are introduced orally.
 Concrete vocabulary is taught through demonstration, objects,
and pictures; abstract vocabulary is taught by association of
ideas.
 Both speech and listening comprehensions are taught.
 Correct pronunciation and grammar are emphasized.
 Student should be speaking at least 80% of the time during the
lesson.
 Students are taught from inception to ask questions as well as
answer them.

9. ROLE OF THE TEACHERS:
 The role of the teacher is to direct class
activities, but students and teacher are partners in
the learning process, and there is a large amount of
Learner-Learner interaction.
ROLE OF THE STUDENTS:
 the student role is less passive than in The Grammar-
Translation Method. The teacher and the students
are more like partners in the teaching/learning
process.

10. STRENGTHS:
 It follows the natural order in which a child learns L1, that is,
listening, speaking, reading, writing.
 It lays great emphasis on speaking, the most important skill for
many learners.
 It avoids the unnatural block of translation in the communication
process.
 Learners learn the language, not about the language.
 Learners have an active role.
 Lively classroom procedures motivate the learner.
 The learning is contextualised.
 The emphasis on speech make it attractive for those who need
real communication in L2.
 The teaching of vocabulary through realia brings authenticity
into the classroom.

11. WEAKNESSES:
 Learning L2 is NOT like learning L1. The child
learning L1 has no previous language-learning
experience, but the learner learning L2 does.
 There is little systematic structural practice.
 Learners run the risk of inducing incorrect rules.
 The method can be effectively used only by
teachers who are native speakers.
 The learner is confronted with unstructured
situations too soon.
 A great deal of teacher-energy is required.

12. CONCLUSION:
 Direct method is very effective to use the English
language by the teacher to implement in their class.
 The students can understand easily if the teacher
uses direct method because this method enhances
the communication skills of the students.
o Focuses on the listening skills of the learners.