Today in class we talked about the “Direct” method of teaching language in which the focus is on pronunciation, oral production of the language, speaking in full sentences, no use of the L1, and communication.

In 2012, I participated in the Critical Language Scholarship program in Beijing, China. There were 30 of us placed in Beijing. We all took placement tests. I got a 9 on the placement test. Yes, a nine. This meant I should be in the 100 level (I got a nine because I was illiterate).  My speaking skills however, were pretty good. So, the professors instead of putting me in the 200 level (because they didn’t offer 100), put me in the 300 level! Logical, I know. We lived with host families and we signed an infamous language pledge. The pledge basically said something like, “I will henceforth use only the target language (Mandarin Chinese) in all aspects of communication (written and spoken). If I am caught breaking the language pledge, I will receive a warning. If I am caught again, I will be sent back home and I will owe the US government the equivalent of their investment in me.” AKA, speak Chinese or go home and owe about 5,000USD to the government. No thanks.

Class time was relatively easy for me, though. We had classes that were completely orally based (unless you took notes). Remember, my spoken Chinese is better than my illiteracy at this point. The teacher would do some of that point and flick technique that we saw in the Greek video. But she also constantly yelled “说句子“ (speak in full sentences) when we just answered with “yes” or “no”. But maybe she should have not asked dichotomous questions?

Outside of class however, it was a struggle. I was illiterate and I some how had to manage to learn all the characters from 100 level and 200 level while simultaneously learning the 300 level characters for our weekly exam.

Regardless of all this, this was the most positive experience of language study that I have ever had. Class time was spent practicing with someone who would actually correct my pronunciation and explain grammar patterns and make us speak to each other. The language pledge (while not ensuring we don’t think in our L1s) made sure we kept practicing all the time. But we did make our own “Chinese Slang” because we were, in fact, still thinking in our L1s. We wanted to be able to say “duh” and “word on the street is” so we made it up in Chinese. Which, although cool, isn’t necessarily the purpose of the Direct Method. Outside of class, I got to work on things that could be done independently, that took more individual time, I didn’t slow anyone down or impede their learning based on my lack of character knowledge.

I think if the Direct Method is used in combination with techniques that teach grammar and writing and reading skills, it can be very useful. And while, the language pledge didn’t switch our brains from one language to the other, it did help us consciously recognize the need to TRY speaking and practicing what we had learned.