COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE TEACHING: GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION METHOD AND DIRECT METHOD
I think nowadays different teaching methods are being used in combined ways depending on the teacher, the target language, the educational traditions etc. However, because of the globalisation and the growing opportunities for meeting different nations, the use of languages especially the English language now assume even greater importance than before. Simultaneously, speaking and listening skills are emphasised more as a way of successful and fluent communication. Since the whole world is getting more and more utilitarian there is also a stress on teaching useful things. There was always a kind of accuracy-versus-fluency debate which has been impossible to resolve, because different teaching approaches appeal to different students at different times. It is probably best to see the situation not in terms of accuracy work or fluency work, but accuracy work and fluency work. It could be argued that a due measure of both at all levels constitutes a reasonable, balanced approach.
I am going to examine two approaches to language teaching and find the most principal differences between them. The Grammar-Translation Method and the Direct Method are rather dissimilar since the central ideas they are based on are very different. While the literary language is superior to spoken language for the Grammar-Translation Method teachers who use the Direct Method teach students how to communicate in the target language, so they teach common, everyday phrases and words. The latter became more popular because the Grammar-Translation Method was not effective enough in preparing students to use the target language communicatively and as I mentioned there has been a growing need for using the languages as a way of effective communication.
I am convinced that both methods have advantages and disadvantages and teachers should combine them according