The Direct Method Gouin had been one of the first of the nineteenth-century reformers to attempt to build a methodology around observation of child language learning. Other reformers toward the end of the century likewise turned their attention to naturalistic principles of language learning, and for this reason they are sometimes referred to as advocates of a “natural” method. In fact, at various times throughout the history of language teaching, attempts have been made to make second language learning more like first language learning, In the sixteenth century, for example, Montaigne described how he was entrusted to a guardian who addressed him exclusively in Latin for the first years of his life, since Montaigne’s father wanted his son to speak Latin well. Among those who tried to apply natural principles to language classes in the nineteenth century was L. Sauveur (1826-1907), who used intensive oral interaction in the target language, employing questions asa way of presenting and eliciting language. He opened a language school in Boston in the late 1860s, and his method soon came to be referred to as the Natural Method Sauveur and other believers in the Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the learner's native language if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and action. The German scholar F. Franke wrote on the psychological principles of direct association between forms and mevnings in the target language (i884) and provided a theoretical justification for a monolingual approach to teaching. According to Franke, a language could best be taught by using it actively in the classroom, Rather than using analytical procedures that focus on explanation] of grammar rules in classroom teaching, teachers must encourage direct and spontaneous use of the foreign language in the classroom. Learners would then be able to induce rules of grammar. ‘the teacher replaced the texthook in the early stages of learning. Speaking began with systematic attention to pronunciation. Known words could be used to teach new vocabulary, using mime, demonstration, and pictures, These natural language learning principles provided the foundation for what came to be known as the Direct Method, which refers to the most widely known of the natu- ral methods. Enthusiastic supporters of the Direct Method introduced it in France and Germany (it was officially approved in both countries at the turn of the century), and it became widely Inown in the United States through its use by Sauveur and Maximilian Berlitz in successful commercial language schools. (Berlitz, in fact, never used the term; he referred to the method used in his schools as the Berlitz Method.) In practice it stood for the following principles and procedures: 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, inten- sive classes, Grammar was taught inductively. New teaching points were introduced orally. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas, Both speech and listening comprehension were taught. . Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized These principles are seen in the following guidelines for teaching oral language, which are still followed in contemporary Berlitz schools:Never translate: demonstrate Never explain: act Never make @ speech: ask questions Never imitale mistakes. correct Nover speak with single words: use sentences Never speak too much: make students speak much Never use the book: use your lesson plan Never jump around: follow your plan Never go too fast: keep the pace of the student Never speak tco slowly: speak normally Never speak too quickly: speak naturally Never speak too loudly: speak naturally Never be impatient: take it easy ‘The Direct Method was quite successful in private language schools, such as those of the Berlitz chain, where paying clients had high motivation and the use of native-speaking teachers was the norm, But despite pressure from proponents of the method, it was difficult to implement in public secondary school education. It overemphasized and distorted the similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classrodm foreign language Iearning and failed to consider the practical realities of the classroom. In addition, it lacked a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory, and for this reason it was often criticized by the more academically based proponents of the Reform Movement. The Direct Method repre- sented the product of enlightened amateurism. It was perceived to have several drawbacks. It required teachers who were native speakers or who had native-like fluency in the foreign language. It was largely dependent on the teacher's skill, rather than on a textbook, and not all teachers were proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere to the principles of the method. Critics pointed out that strict adherence to Direct Method principles was often counterproductive, since teachers were required to go to great lengths to avoid using the native language, when sometimes a simple, brief explanation in the student's native language would have been a more efficient route to comprehension. ‘The Harvard psychologist Roger Brown has documented similar problems with strict Di verbal gymnastics in an attempt to convey the meaning of Japanese words, when translation would have been a much more efficient technique (Brown 197%: 5). By the 19205, use of the Direct Method in noncommercial schools in Europe had consequently declined. In France and Germany it was gradually modified into versions that combined some Direct Method techniques with more controlled grammar-based activities ‘The European popularity of the Direct Method in the early part of the twentieth century caused foreign language specialists in the United States to attempt to have it implemented , although they decided to move with caution. A study begun in 1923 on the state of foreign language teaching concluded that no single method could guarantee successful results. ‘The goal of trying to teach conversation skills was considered impractical in view of the restricted time available for foreign language teaching in schools, the limited skills of teachers, and the perceived irrelevance of conversation skills in a eet Method techniques. He described his frustration in observing a teacher perform! in US schools and colleges foreign language for the average American college student. ‘The study ~ published as the Coleman Report ~ argued that a more reasonable goal for a foreign language course would be a reading knowledge of a foreign language, achieved through the gradual introductionbea reading of words and grammatical structures in simple reading texts. The main result of this rec~ nowledge of a foreign language, achieved through the gradual introduction ommendation was that reading became the goal of most foreign language programs in the United States (Coleman 1929). The emphasis on reading continued to characterize foreign language teaching in the United States until World War IL Although the Direct Method enjoyed popularity Europe, not everyone embraced it enthusiastically. The British applied linguist Tenry Sweet recognized its limitations. Tt offered innovations at the level of teaching procedures but lacked a thorough methodologi- cal basis, Its main focus was on the exclusive use of the target language in the classtoom, but it failed to address many issues that Sweet thought more basic. Sweet and other applied lin- guists argued for the development of sound methodological principles that could serve as the basis for teaching techniques. In the 1920s and 1930s, applied linguists systematized the principles proposed earlier by the Reform Movement and so laid the foundations for what