Teacher Discussion Forums

Did they invent the method?

They don't really use 'total immersion' as far as I know it.

I'm not 100% clear on the details of the Berlitz method, but what I gather is that many people working together came up with 'The Direct Method', in which one of the many theories is that only the first language should be used, and the Berlitz method was one version of the Direct Method. It seems that The Direct Method was one of the first to avoid the mother tongue completely, and Berlitz came just after.

However, using only the first language to teach isn't really 'immersion' and definitely isn't 'total immersion'. Immersion programmes are most famous in Canada with people whose first language is English learning maths, history, science, etc, in French. If you are 'teaching English' it is probably not 'immersion'.

Total immersion means, to me, that they only use English outside the class too (so would be rare in a non-English speaking country unless in a specialist resort or camp programme with limited outside contact).

I was having similar thoughts to Heath regarding the meaning of 'immersion' (versus indeed the Direct Method), but some Masters of Horror DVDs rather distracted me from posting earlier.

Howatt's A History of ELT (the Widdowson-co-written/revised/somewhat updated Second edition, which is previewable on Google Books) states 'Though Berlitz did not invent the Direct Method, he made it available to large numbers of language learners in Europe and America through his system of schools' (see note to figure at base of pg 222).

Howatt's book generally stresses antecedents and continuity rather than complete "revolutionary" breaks (or, what is new and the best thing since sliced bread is generally unbalanced/unbalancing, faddish, unscientific, bogus even), but I think one could place the Direct Method alongside (as being influenced by) the contemporaneous Reform Movement generally (see pg 187 ~), even if DM merchants were (and still often are!) more "civvies" than linguists and educators proper.

Ah, yes, what a bad memory I have... I was trying to recall the Reform Movement, and had to go for 'a group of people working together' when I couldn't quite remember who/what it was that lead to the DM. (I read Richards a looong time ago).

Ooh, yeah, then there's Richards & Rodgers too - not a bad overview in that!

Howatt notes in his history that Sauveur, a French immigrant to New England, preceded Berlitz with his "natural method" which was for all intents a direct method. But we have no evidence of Berlitz officially acknowledging Sauveur (whatever).

http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 0695#40695 (NB: The closing 'Lambert Sauveur is is' should read 'it is'!).

Yep. Their postillion got hit by lightning so they poured water all over him and he survived, but with foreign language syndrome.

But the practice started amongst evangelical Christians two thousand years ago who were immersed in the River Jordan and woke up speaking in tongues.

Good! Finally, an edifying, salon-type discussion about an interesting topic! Thank you all for your inputs and clarifications, especially concerning immersion vs. direct method.
So then, let me distill my question a bit more; how about this:

Was Berlitz the first of the currently popular schools to come up with the direct method? Indeed, is that why they are still so popular, i.e., they came up with a very good idea that has sustained them for all this time? Is it true that all the other schools looked at them and said "Hey, looky what they can do! Gee, we gotta jump on their bandwagon and get our students up to their level!"
Did they set the trend, in other words.

Oh, yeah, it was Richards & Rodgers (further reinforcing how bad my memory was)... sadly I've only ever been able to get a copy of the later editions (does the latest edition include the Lexical Approach?)

I guess you mean you only have a copy of the first/earlier edition, Heath? Because the Second edition of R&R indeed has a short chapter on the Lexical Approach, which IIRC they summarize along the lines of 'an approach still in search of a methodology'.

The book overall is appreciably longer/thicker, with older and nowadays less in-vogue methods receiving shorter chapters than before, and about nine new chapters covering things that have emerged since the First edition of 1986.

Anyway, the newer edition is previewable on Google Books.

Direct method has no real meaning. This is what the collective brain of humanity says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_method_(education)

Sounds just like any typical modern ESL really. As ever, the most important thing is to bash the process of carefully translating sentences out your native language.

The minority of ESL teachers who learn languages seriously will know that this is a very useful thing to do, although like anything not the be all and end all.

It isn't done to enquire seriously into the methods of Berlitz or other such companies. They are despicable "merchants" of some kind and have never educated a single soul, not never. You see they lack the grand scientific basis of those teachers who fumble through the endless bland series produced by the OUP or CUP.

Lol, yes, I've only ever been able to get a copy of the first edition. (Changed my line of thought mid-sentence, finishing "I haven't ever" instead of "I've only ever"... doh). Anyway, previews here I come.

I do remember someone telling me once that the 'Direct Method' was like an older version of some communicative approaches, and that if it had arrived 20 years later, it probably would have been 'the big thing' (instead of Audio-Lingualism, perhaps?) but that it came at a time when people weren't ready to accept it (it was too radical?)

I've always thought it seems more similar to Audio-Lingualism than modern communicative approaches though.