Chapter I theoretical foundation of direct method

CONCLUSION
To sum up the direct method of teaching was developed as a response to the Grammar-Translation method. It sought to immerse the learner in the same way as when a first language is learnt. All teaching is done in the target language, grammar is taught inductively, there is a focus on speaking and listening, and only useful ‘everyday’ language is taught. The weakness in the Direct Method is its assumption that a second language can be learnt in exactly the same way as a first, when in fact the conditions under which a second language is learnt are very different. The teacher and the students are more like partners in the teaching/learning process. Teacher/student interaction became fuller, guessing of context or content, completing fill-ins, and doing “cloze” exercises were the order of the day. The teacher is as the facilitator of the language and the students is the active learners who are active in learning and exploring the target language.
The main focus lies on communication in this method. Here a special emphasis is given to spoken language rather than writing. Although active and passive skills are furthered there is a certain bias in favour of speaking. Grammar is not dealt with deductively, but students are expected to develop an intuitive feeling inductively. There is a clear stress on fluency, pronunciation is trained from beginning. As condition for this talking in free speech there is another stress on vocabulary rather than on grammatical structures. Pupils learn to communicate in the language but do not get deeper information about the language.
As an outcome we can expect that learners who are taught by this method or rather fostered in their acquisition will quickly develop a good command of the target language in means of communication, will be better in oral production and comprehension than in writing and reading, will only later achieve knowledge about grammatical structures of the language, but will develop an unconscious feeling of grammatical correctness. Possibly they may have problems in writing or analysing complicated texts, as reading is not a focus of this method and texts used in the lessons are rather narrative than expositorý.
The most obvious advantage is that the learner achieves a good performance in the target language and learns to think in it. Hence inappropriate translations are avoided. The student will not be able to explain grammatical structures which might be a hindrance for self-correction.
In the light of statistical analysis and the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
It is obvious that children learn a wide range of vocabulary to communicate with others in context.In order to contextualize the vocabulary teachers need to use different techniques to teach it. The foremost common techniques to teach university students vocabulary are by real things (realia), actions (gesture), pictures (illustrations, posters), songs, storytelling, games, using readings, etc.Different linguists provide different reason to illustrate why these techniques are useful in A2 classes. For instance, realia is one of the most useful ways to teach vocabulary because it uses “authentic material”. Wright refers to realia in these terms: “Objects (sometimes called ‘realia’) are an ideal way of showing the meaning of English words for concreting things”. In other words, realia is the use of real objects such as toys to teach animals or plastic or real fruits and vegetables to teach food. It involves students using their senses by touching, smelling and seeing.
Another technique usingpictures also have been considered the most common technique to teach vocabulary. Pictures could be designed by the teacher.Additionally, I recommend that stories can be used as a source to motivate children to learn. An EFL teacher can use the favorite story in the learner‘s mother tongue and translate it into English in order to catch learner‘s attention.
From all above-stated it is possible to draw the following conclusions. The purpose of this work was to discover the most effective ways of teaching a foreign language to pupils . For achievement of the purpose the works of uzbek and foreign authors on the given problem have been studied. In formation of interest to a subject the huge role is played by the person of the teacher. Therefore a pledge of successful mastering a foreign language by the pupils is professionalism of the teacher which should in the work not only take into account the methodical principles underlying teaching, but also to be in constant search of new receptions and means of teaching which will recover a lesson, will make it fascinating, cognitive and remembered. The most useful for this purpose are the following receptions and methods: methods of constructivism, communicative methods, methods of projects and discussions, games and role games, etc. In my work have been analysed all these methods and the receptions raising quality of training to foreign language on the basis of studying of various techniques of teaching, used in work with pupils. Many of receptions can be applied with success at teaching children of younger and more advanced age.
With its structure, direct teaching is considered one of the most powerful teaching methods. The procedure is systematic and grounded on sound teaching and learning principles. But direct teaching also has its disadvantages. There are situations that can make direct teaching ineffective.
But the structure of direct teaching can be rigid enough to hinder the creativity of the teacher. There is very little room to improvise because this method follows a step-by-step procedure. The procedure usually starts with an introduction, followed by the rationale for the instruction, then by the instruction itself. The procedure ends with a summary and then followed by an assessment.
Direct teaching, if utilized by unprepared teachers, can be disastrous. For direct teaching or instruction to be effective, the teacher must have a mastery of the subject matter, must prepare a well-organized content, and must have excellent communication skills. Without these traits, a teacher could not effectively carry out direct teaching or direct instruction, nor could they develop higher order thinking skills in the students.
As an outcome we can expect that learners who are taught by this method or rather fostered in their acquisition will quickly develop a good command of the target language in means of communication, will be better in oral production and comprehension than in writing and reading, will only later achieve knowledge about grammatical structures of the language, but will develop an unconscious feeling of grammatical correctness. Possibly they may have problems in writing or analysing complicated texts, as reading is not a focus of this method and texts used in the lessons are rather narrative than expositorý.
The most obvious advantage is that the learner achieves a good performance in the target language and learns to think in it. Hence inappropriate translations are avoided. The student will not be able to explain grammatical structures which might be a hindrance for self-correction.
1. On a whole, the direct teaching method is more effective as a teaching-learning technique for English as compared to the traditional teaching method. Students in the direct teaching method outscored students working in the traditional learning situation.
2. Low achievers in direct teaching showed significant superiority over low achievers learning English by the traditional method. Thus, direct teaching was found to be a more effective method for teaching English to the low achievers, as compared to the traditional method of teaching.
3. High achievers, whether they were taught English by the direct or traditional method, retained learned material at the same rate.
4. Low achievers taught English by the direct method retained more material, as compared to low achievers taught by the traditional method of teaching. Therefore, the direct teaching seemed to be a more effective teaching-learning technique for low achievers.