Direct Method: Cons

Cons of the Direct Method 

by O. G. P.

Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I

As the title suggests, in this essay, I will talk about some of the most worth-considering cons of the Direct Method (DM) in connection to the learning teaching process of a Second Language (L2).

First of all, let us bear in mind that the key proposal of the DM is that the professor will have to teach the target language using - only – and - exclusively - the target language, while the learner while have to learn the language ‘as a baby’, and avoiding completely his already existent native language. At first, the idea of imitating the natural way in which a language learner acquires his mother tongue, seems, indeed, very good. However, when analyzed in detail, a number of downsides emerge.

On the one hand, It is worthy to consider that a number of linguistic theories, including Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar (UG), postulate a theoretical problem to the DM. If the long-debated critical period hypothesis be true, it should be admitted that the process of learning a Second Language is different than from the process of learning one’s mother tongue, and our ‘language acquisition device’ (LAD) is not as ready to learn the L2 as was with the L1, the reason of which, we will not be able to ‘infer’ all grammatical rules the way that a baby would do it with his L1.

On the other hand, it is important to consider that there are essential – sometimes diametral - differences between a baby or a toddler who is learning with the help of his mother, and a teenager, a young adult or an adult who seek to learn the L2 with the assistance of professor. One has to do with cognitive abilities: while the baby is just beginning to acquire them and develop them progressively, older learners have much more developed abilities to learn and think, and try use that to accelerate the process of learning. Another difference is the disposition to learn: the baby seems to have an innate desire of learning the language in order to communicate with his mother or people around him (with whom he has an emotional bound).  In contrast, the teen, youngster or adult who learns a L2, already has one language and almost certainly no serious emotional bound with his professor. In this sense, for instance, facing linguistic ‘corrections’ from a mother and a teacher, is pretty different. A fourth difference is related to the knowledge of the world: while the baby is just “discovering the world” and the mental image of things (the signified); the oldest learners have obviously much more knowledge and experiences that already have acquired.

In such scenario, how sensible does it seems that the DM advocator forbid he learners to use the knowledge they already have in their mother tongue? If we already possess a signifier related, a signified, and cognitive abilities that may help us to relate and compare one language to another, why should it be denied to the learner? How much counterproductive could it be if we have already an emotional attachment to our mother tongue? And why should the learner be expected to “infer” the grammatical rules, or spelling in writing, when even children from a young age are supposed to be taught reading, spelling and writing abilities for future situations in their life?

In my experience, what I feel as certain is that comparing L1 with L2 may be useful for us as language learners, if we take it not as the main method, but as a reference point in cases where the meaning of words in the target language seem to be ambiguous, when the level of the students is just too basic to understand the language, or when the comparison between one language and another seem to be necessary, for instance, in some grammatical cases.

In conclusion, though the DM may be useful for the learners who only want to learn and focus on speaking and listening skills, or for those who are possibly younger, or of basic levels; empty spots are missing especially in relation to the development of grammar and reading.