TPR (total physical response) is a method used to teach a second language with physical body movements andoral speaking.
In principle, the teacher would say basic sentences along with a physical body action for each sentence and through a process of slow repetition, the pupils will then join in with the actions. When the actions are beginning to be remembered by the pupils, speaking the sentences can then be introduced. It is used in groups so that everyone has the confidence to speak and there is a safety net for them in that if pupils can't remember what the action or sentence was, they can copy from someone else in the group.
In principle, the teacher would say basic sentences along with a physical body action for each sentence and through a process of slow repetition, the pupils will then join in with the actions. When the actions are beginning to be remembered by the pupils, speaking the sentences can then be introduced. It is used in groups so that everyone has the confidence to speak and there is a safety net for them in that if pupils can't remember what the action or sentence was, they can copy from someone else in the group.
A basic example:
'Stand up'
'Sit down'
'Walk to the table'
'Sit on the table'
All of these basic sentences can fit with an action, but there are many other subjects that can be adapted to the method.
TPRS (total proficiency through reading and storytelling) is what appears to be a higher level of TPR in that it can expand language acquisition by creating a story. TPRS is more visual in that words are displayed and through repetition of reading those words, questions can be created - 'circling'.
Here is an example of TPRS and circling:
The topic is; A girl eats a sandwich,
through creating questions about this subject you must change;
the noun - Sarah, the verb - eat and the subject - sandwich.
Did a girl eat a sandwich? Yes
Did a girl eat a sandwich or did a boy eat a sandwich? A girl ate a sandwich
Did a man eat a sandwich? No
Who ate a sandwich? Sarah ate a sandwich
This is then repeated changing the verb and the subject.
By circling, it builds on acquiring the language through repetition, by constantly adding new vocabulary but staying with the same story, It is again through a group response, so it is a stress free learning process.
The big questions:
Would you see these to be effective methods in the classroom? Repetitive and boring? Exciting and engaging?
Or is learning a language all down to the teacher who teaches you?
Having had a series of language lessons with this method being applied, I would have to say this is a poor method of second language learning.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would say the teacher I had was not very good at applying the method, I still find this method uninteresting, un-engaging and far too unstructured.
I think the method AIM, which is rather similar to TPR and TPRS, is much more effective, fun and engaging for students and would definitely be my method of choice.
Jade
I am still undecided whether or not this is a good method because in theory the idea of using it to teach language appears well. However when the lady in the work shop tried to apply it just seemed to be so repetetive. I do think that was a result of it being such a long workshop but that is my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day I do believe language learning is not always down to the teacher as it takes teacher and learner to be able to complete the learning process. Having said that the teacher need to execute any method of teaching well.
Please visit my Blog for a continous discussion about TPR / TPRS at
http://scotthodson45.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/learn-a-language-in-seven-minutes-i-think-not/
I think my interests are more in TPR. In my opinion TPR can really help you to learn a second language, because you are moving and you learn the language with your whole body.
ReplyDeleteBut it is not usefull for learning the structures of a language.
I think it's boring for children because this method has got a lot of repetitions...I think method as so much memorization.I agree to Jade the method AIM is much more effective and fun...Or you use FSMT/ narrative/paraphrase approach. I think that this method is more exciting than TPRS and circling method for children.Children can create a new word not always repetitive...
ReplyDeleteYes, i agree with some of you that this method can be boring and repetitive but isnt that up to the teacher to make this method exciting and fun for the children. Usually if the children are finding a lesson boring, its normally down to the teacher who isnt making it engaging and interesting enough, thats what i think anyway.
ReplyDeleteI really like the method and, when used properly i think it can be an effective aid to second language learning
The workshop that we went to had some brilliant ideas, its just learning how to apply them to the classroom. How to make them interesting. The majority of the time anything that is interactive keeps the children from being bored. On the other hand, I believe that it is the teacher that makes the lessons what they are when it comes down to TPR. It is very easy for TPR to become very boring and tedious, as witnessed in the workshop whilst learning Chinese. If it does not go in the first time it came become very frustrating. However on the other hand, if you have a good teacher with a enthusiastic class then TPR can be both exciting and engaging. Crap, now i just saw the second question.. ermm as seen above, i think that it is very important who the teacher is.
ReplyDeleteI can see the benefits of both these methods if taught in an innovative way so that children do not get bored. Would be of great benefit to children with special educational needs.
ReplyDeleteSurely how effective this method can be depends on the child being taught, rather than the teacher? What works well with one child could be found entirely boring by another.
ReplyDeleteHaving had lessons using TPR and taught one to one using TPR/S I have found it can be a very effective way of learning, but it does depend on the teacher. Teachers who make lessons fun and visual can make a very big difference, and it does require a teacher who has been trained to teach language, not just trained to teach TPR. I can still clearly recall my French teacher from school teaching "Qu'est que ce?" by baring his his legs, whereas being taught "this is a bus" in Chinese, much more recently, I have no recollection of.
ReplyDeleteWhile TPS/S is a good method, it still requires a good teacher.
I would see these as being very effective ways of teaching in the class room as it keeps the mind occupied all the time by methodicaly adding new context at a steady pace thus introducing the students to a deeper understanding to a gradually building knowledge of a topic. In using this process I believe it to be neither repetative or boring as it keeps adding and building on the material they will of already mastered.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand there is alot said for how this would be delivered by said teacher and also how attentative and involved the student will be. In conclusion this could work on both levels depending on the teacher and student.
I think that TPR learning can be useful, helping to associate the words with actions. But while repetition can eventually get the message across and it is largely down to the teacher to keep it interesting if the student isn't receptive it makes no difference. No matter what the method is.
ReplyDeleteFrom experience TPR can be successful but has it's limits. To be truly effective the teacher should understand the complexity of learning and be able to adapt their teaching style especially when delivering a subject to a number of students. I remember it being a method used in the very early stages of learning a new language, beyond that it didn't really encourage creative thought and became a bit "parrot fashion".
ReplyDeleteI would anticipate that TPR would be an effective and none threatening teaching method amongst children who are at varying levels of academic ability. Where normally a child with learning difficulties may chose not to participate, they can look to the other children for guidance and eventually instil a confidence to participate.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion whether TPR/TPRS is engaging or repetitive totally depends on the skills of the teacher applying it and if they have properly accommodated it the the class in question.
ReplyDeleteThe example we received i believe was poor and she did not think of the class entirely. Hence why most of us gave grunts in stead of words. so i do not have a clear example of the methods in practice.
TPR could defiantly a starting point for language acquisition and if done well alot of fun, and children in primary school would thrive on this type of movement learning.
But totally depends on the dedication of the teacher, if a teacher is half hearted doing this type of method. forget it it simply will not work.
First of all I think the teacher who teaches the language has a big influence, of corse. If the teacher is bad in the language you will not learn it either.
ReplyDeleteAnd the methods are a big part of the lessons as well. Like I have experienced it is a big advantage for the children and their learning if you keep busy with movements and a verity of methods, they will learn unconsciously. Thats why TPR works so well, they do not realize that they learn.
Thank you for the comments.
ReplyDeleteIt was great to read all the different viewpoints that you all hold on the effectiveness of TPR/TPRS.
I like the idea of TPR and TPRS, as both can be applied in the classroom at certain points, but I don't see it to be the most effective method in learning a second language. I just believe that it could get repetitive and therefore ineffective.