Talk:Grammar–translation method

… what is the teacher's role in such a method? why is a method and not an approach; in other words, how is a language teaching method different from a language teaching approach? what then can we call a technique?

Teacher's role in GTM: detailed explanation of grammatical rules error correction (immediate) asking comprehension questions etc.

As for technique and method: step (item, technique): the smallest possible unit in a language teaching process eg.: reading aloud, fill the gap, repeat what you hear etc.; process: consists of steps, a logical series of steps eg.: dialogue exploitation; method: a finite number of steps in which the arranged language content and classroom teaching form are organically entwined to ensure the necessary dedactic phases for acquisition during the whole process.

I hope this helps.

LP

The Disadvantages section looks like POV to me and needs citation - for example the classification of the Grammar Translation method as 'unnatural' and then a reference to hearing/speaking/reading/writing looks very much like most of the advertising blurb that goes with language courses, or the untested theories of modern linguistics scholars. Can citations be added please?

Besides, there are no clear sources supporting the notion that Grammar-Translation neglected speech. There are many textbooks back from the eighteen century to teach foreign languages (like Adler's Latin course) that strengthened fluent speech all along. Furthermore Europe, South America and even in the States people learnt to speak, write and read perfectly through centuries through this technique. This text needs to be thoroughly edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.58.131 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting critique to suggest that the method is not supported by theory. Isn't that the fault of scholars, rather than the method? The article notes its overwhelming use in academia, and people have been learning foreign languages for centuries. Likewise, they have been learning to speak other language for centuries, despite the questionable idea that the method does not prepare them for that. It may not be the most effective system of language learning, but it's unlikely to be as bad as the article suggests.Izuko (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Izuko. The conclusion of the article (reference 1) literally concludes with: "Therefore, we should encourage language teachers to fuse the two methods to meet the goal of foreign language teaching so as to cater to the actual needs of our language learners, since the two can complement each other." So I'm not sure how one can say that the method has been rejected by scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweimar (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Might there be evidence for grammar to help grammarians and hinder non-grammarians? My personal bias here is that I found this article to be a tremendous relief, having struggled with this method for many years ineffectively but done well with others. Teachers of mine, however, feel it to be good & useful to the point of being obvious. This is in spite of huge failure rates among their students or when made aware of criticisms or alternatives. They would consider this article naiv and that gives me pause. I wonder if anybody with more knowledge in the field could say if there might be evidence that grammar-based language learning is useful for those who have acquired many languages in this way [e.g. philologists, indologists etc.] or just grammarians who have cultivated fluency in grammatical thinking. For those without such - hard to acquire - fluency, however, the use of grammar would require acquisition of a complex skillset, which, during the acquisition period, acts more as obstacle than support. - My hope would be that, if so, criticism of grammar based language learning would become more accessible to teachers.

English
English speaking 49.144.216.254 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Time periods
Having added quite a bit to the New Latin page on teaching and schools, I am not sure the time periods and methods are quite right. Grammar based teaching seems to intensify over time, but Latin is taught as a spoken language for quite a lot longer than the article here implies, depending on exactly where. Jim Killock (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

link in the references is bust
I don't know how to fix it myself but the link to the first reference just goes to a grammar checker website. 50.30.156.251 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like that was a spam link added by a user that was since blocked. It doesn't have anything to do with the reference. I removed it. Thanks for the heads-up. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)