The nearest I can figure is that a lot of foreign English teachers in Japan dislike the way that English is taught here, which has come to be referred to as the “grammar-translation method.” They’re partly right, in that English education in Japan leaves a lot to be desired, and I mean a lot. But the problem doesn’t stem from translation, which as you point out can be a valuable and even fun activity. Rather the problems arise from teachers badgering students into submission, forcing them to memorize long lists of words with no context, and an emphasis on written language rather than oral communication, just to name a few.

It seems entirely reasonable to me for a beginning student to work with learning basic grammar, and practice via translating simple sentences, at least until they’ve got a decent “toolbox” built up. From my experiences, the better language departments at different universities do it that way, and I don’t see why it can’t be enjoyable either (I certainly didn’t mind it when I was taking German.)

(PS: This is a long reply, but I promise I address your concerns at the bottom!)

There are a lot of newly-minted English teachers in Japan who are shocked to discover how English education is conducted. For them, the “grammar-translation method” equates to a boring, teacher-centered class. I don’t disagree that many classes are exactly that. But is that the grammar-translation method at work?

First of all, I have to ask: What exactly is the grammar-translation method? In my research, I have yet to discover anything that describes what the “method” is, beyond a general description indicating that some translation and learning of grammar occurs. Certainly, I have yet to see anything along the lines of:

“Step 1: Students read a passage in the target language. Step 2: Teacher drills unfamiliar words with students by using picture cards and short explanations in the native language. Step 3: Students form groups and try to construct sentences using the new vocabulary and as-yet unfamiliar grammar. Step 4: Teacher provides the corrected sentences on the board and explains the new grammar. Step 5: Students individually write translations the text in their native language.”

Something like that. Just off the top of my head, that looks like a “method” or a template for instruction. But what people are criticizing as the grammar-translation method isn’t anything in particular at all. It’s some amorphous idea about what constitutes an ineffective lesson.

By contrast, the concept popular among native-speaking English teachers is to simply dive into direct instruction and conversation practice. The idea is that students will improve their speaking skills by actually applying the language in spoken, quasi-realistic situations. This has the side benefit of side-stepping the two things that few native English teachers can actually do, namely grammar and translation.

I don’t disagree that this is effective. It works. But so does teaching grammar, and so does translation. Honestly, everything works. (See http://www.japaneseruleof7.com/the-best-way-to-learn-japanese/ for more on this idea.) The truth is that learning a language is a lengthy, multifaceted process amenable to a variety of approaches.

And after all that, the truth is that it’s not the method; it’s the teacher. A good teacher cares whether or not students understand and feel satisfaction the progress they’re making. And above all, that they’re not bored out of their skulls.

Now, on your particular situation, you’ve got some challenges. I see six right off the bat (none of which have much to do with the “grammar-translation method,” by the way. Actually, it sounds like more a lack of method than anything.)

1. Students are failing to understand parts of what they’re being asked to do. Without a doubt, they have to understand before they can go further, so something is missing in the initial instruction. Either you or the other teacher must do something to help them understand the missing points. By the way, “do something” does not necessarily mean “teach at them.” It could be a game, exploratory activity, song, etc.

2. The level sounds like it may be too high for them. This is just a guess, but if they’re 3rd graders, it might not take much to blow them away. Are you asking too much too early? Children have difficulty holding many items in short-term memory, and difficulty conceptualizing grammar, so long sentences are often beyond their reach. Remember “See Spot. See Spot run”? That’s more like it.

3. It sounds boring. Rather than asking kids to concentrate on something this involved, you might try short, timed competitions between several groups, matching games, or a mock situation utilizing the target language (such as buying items at a store with play money).

4. Why testing? Testing helps to ensure comprehension, measure progress, and provide an objective. But those aims can be achieved without putting individuals on the spot. Young children are especially vulnerable to being judged. Protecting the confidence and enjoyment of all learners should be at the top of the list.

5. You’ve got another teacher in the mix. (By the way, I’m just pointing out the challenges; I understand you may not be able to change the situation much.) If that teacher isn’t providing interesting, valuable, and motivating instruction, that’s a separate challenge.

6. 45 minutes a week. That’s short, and you’ll need to be realistic about how much change you can effect in that amount of time.

Well, sorry for the long reply. Let me know how it goes. Hope some of that helps.

With lower level students, however, I’ve found that a lack of translation sometimes leads to misunderstandings and can distract from the points of the lesson. Sometimes it’s easier just to say “this means this,” everybody understands it, and we can move on.