The Grammar Translation Method: brief background

The Grammar Translation Method (GTM) is a traditional method of teaching. The essential concern is to teach students the target language through reading and then translating texts into the L1, and there are few opportunities for speaking and listening exercises (Brown, 2000). Users of this method assume that FL students are able to speak the target language if they can translate from their L1 to the FL. According to Nassaji and Fotos (2011), the fundamental aim of the GTM is to help students master the target language by training them to learn FL grammar rules. This view of learning supports the behaviourist claims of transferring habits between first and foreign language (see Section 4.1.1). Students study grammar in depth then undertake exercises to translate into the L1 or FL (Ellis and Shintani 2013). Learning grammar might help EFL students improve their thinking in FL because they gain a deep understanding of the grammatical and syntactical structure of the target language. For example, to teach REFL using the GTM, Baron (2006, p.4) states that the method consists of a ‘sequence of classroom activities’ in which the grammar rules are explained, studied, learned and used. The student is given a bilingual list of vocabulary which s/he will learn by heart. As its name suggests, this method of teaching involves translating the text from the target language into the L1 by the teacher or student, with an explanation of unfamiliar words and grammatical rules. If I wanted to apply these procedures to teaching the extract from A Scots Quair to EFL students I would do the following.

I would provide students with a grammatical analysis of the text such as describing the function of the subject, the use of the conditional and subjective tenses, and the exact meaning of words such as Kinraddie and Den in the students' mother tongue. I would follow this by asking the students to read and translate the whole text into the L1. Using these procedures, I would assume that the GTM method employs and improves bottom-up type reading strategies, such as the use of grammatical and vocabulary knowledge, through translation to L1. However, teaching reading by translating the whole text might not help students to understand the overall meaning of the text because the bilingual dictionary might provide the literal meaning of the words, but not help with contextual meaning such as '... with a great wolf-beast, come through the hide window, tearing at their throats'. As Allan (2009) argues, reading does not always rely on translating every word as this may miss the actual meaning of the sentence and of words in context. For instance, 'tearing' in the above text might mean 'violent' if it is an adjective and 'rip to pieces with force' if it is a verb. The student has to work out which of these meanings are accurate, given the context - if s/he can access the text's meaning at this stage. Further, the meaning of the words might vary from one language to another because, as noted in Chapter Three, not all languages have equivalent words in the L1. So, using words such as Kinraddie and den will not be found in the bilingual dictionary because they are culturally and geographically specific, or derive from local dialect, Mid-Scots, or are inventions by the author. Kinraddie, as I have discussed, is a place name invention, though 'kin' means 'head of' in Gaelic and signifies a place name. Den is from Old English and can mean an animal’s lair, a pit or cave, or, informally, a favourite private room or place. In this text, den denotes the lair of the wolf-beast. Students will need the teacher’s assistance here because lair will not be known to Arabic students. The word also carries a specific meaning to mean something awful, a meaning that would almost certainly be lost on the students I usually teach.

Students using the GTM are unlikely to think, initially at least, about the meaning of the text or to use cognitive strategies such as top-down type reading strategies to understand the text. The student in the GTM procedures is viewed from the behaviourist perspective as a 'recipient of knowledge' (Lin, 2015), and the teacher’s role is either to translate, read and explain the text, or to have the students do the same. However, the GTM should be

considered an important preparatory method to enable the student to acquire grammar comprehension skills as an important part of reading for meaning (using bottom-up type reading strategies as a starting point). The GTM is based on the hypothesis that students

learn the target language simply by following the teaching method (Takac, 2008). The teacher’s role is to control classroom activities, making it a teacher-centred environment in which s/he is viewed as the main source of knowledge and power. Larsen-Freeman (2000) states that classroom interaction in the GTM is based on teacher-student interaction, and 'there is little student-student or text-student interaction and initiation' (p.18).

Accurate knowledge of the target language is an important aspect of the GTM (Harmer, 2007). Therefore, getting the correct answers from the student is crucial, and the teacher is expected to immediately correct the student’s errors and help them understand their mistakes (Fazili, 2007). These GTM procedures support behaviourist claims about immediate error correction to improve learner performance (see Section 4.1.1). However, correcting students’ mistakes immediately might reduce students’ confidence in

developing their language skills (Natsir and Sanjaya, 2014) by making the student anxious and hesitant to speak out in class. Byram (2000) adds that the GTM ‘has less strict

requirements for qualifications and competencies to enable them [teachers] to teach the foreign language’ (p.251), which might explain why the GTM method is still used today in many countries, and I develop an account of this method in Chapter Six. However, while the GTM has drawbacks, like all EFL methods, there are advantages. For example, Rao (2010) states that the GTM is successful in classes containing large numbers of students because teachers using the GTM do not need to interact with each student. The teacher provides students with a list of words which they memorise and use to read the text. So, the number of words that EFL student learn from each lesson might increase the student’s word knowledge and help them in REFL. In addition, translating words into the mother tongue can help students understand the text, so is less time consuming than preventing them from using their L1 in REFL (see Chapter Six and Seven). Teaching a particular language skill, such as translating the grammar rules from L1 to FL, might not help in understanding reading because to read for meaning requires eventual interactive strategies (top-down and bottom-up type reading strategies) which the GTM does not encourage.

Elabbar (2011) argues that the GTM method is still considered the best way of teaching EFL in Libya and is widespread in all educational institutions. Many Libyan EFL teachers have themselves been taught using aspects of GTM, such as the traditional approaches to learning the Holy-Quran, old Arabic poems and some national sayings. In Libya, the GTM also suits students’ learning experiences, which are influenced by minimal interaction with

and my own concerns are noted above. These critiques are based on the use of L1 and the students’ role in the classroom. The following section discusses briefly the aspects of the Direct Method in teaching a FL.