USING TPRS IN LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS
Mansour Wahby MA, University of Sunderland, UK
English Language Teacher & Master Trainer English Language Center Taibah University, KSA Mansourwahby75@gmail.com
1|Page
Abstract This study mainly tackles using most of the tenets of the TPR Storytelling approach in order to reach student-centered learning. The participants of the study are of two types; teachers and students in the ELC, Taibah University. The main question of the study is “Can studentcentered learning be applied through TPRS approach utilizing technology advantages?� the students, who are all beginners, are taught the simple past tense through a short story making use of gestures and a PowerPoint presentation to reach acquisition through an interesting communicative session. The teachers were shown the videod sessions were asked to judge the session through a checklist. The results of the students in the writing and the grammar test show that the answer to the study question is positive. Moreover, the teachers’ feedback collected through the 15-item while-viewing checklist emphasized the hypothesis and added that TPRS is one of the best methods that include most of the characteristics of the communicative approach in general and the students-centered learning in particular that cause beginner students to be more motivated and more confident learners.
Keywords: TPR Storytelling; student-centered learning; communicative approach; technology
2|Page
Introduction TPR Storytelling is a radically different method of teaching a foreign language. Blaine Ray developed TPRS in 1990 by adding storytelling to James Asher's Total Physical Response method. TPRS draws upon Stephen Krashen's theory of language acquisition and his Natural Approach. With TPRS students first learn words by practicing them with a movement or gesture. Then the vocabulary is practiced through the telling of humorous personalized stories. TPRS enables the teacher to provide a constant stream of comprehensible and interesting input in the target language which supports learner’s autonomy and works for student-centered learning; "In order for language to be acquired, it must be comprehensible (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Over the years the TPRS method has evolved to bring research on language acquisition and best practices into the classroom. TPRS has become increasingly popular with teachers, as word has spread about the incredible progress students make, and how much they suddenly love learning a language; “It is much easier and more enjoyable to acquire a language than it is to learn a language (Krashen & Terrell, 1983)." (Gaab, 2011) TPRS is also served by the Communicative Language Teaching approach, which assumes that the goal of language teaching is communicative competence in a contextualized (meaningful), and learner-centered environment; “Context is a powerful tool for enhancing SLA — second language acquisition” (Fuller, 2002; Fleishman & Roy, 2005; Krashen 2002). As students become more confident, they do more and more student-centered work, but we must strike a balance between leading the students and letting them have control of their learning. This balance may be different from class to class. Some classes may not respond so well to autonomy and demand that all their activities be teacher-led – but giving in to students may not be in their best interests. The teacher may need to persuade and urge them to spend an increasing amount of
3|Page
time on student-centered activities that are interesting and at the same time encouraging. This encouragement mainly comes when the student feels that he can manage doing the activity quickly and confidently. TPRS typically involve the traits of the student-centered approach where students are involved in the learning process and become committed to improving their English. Different learning styles can be accommodated, and students can help each other to develop their skills. TPRS is actually a much more natural way of teaching a language than the traditional approaches. With TPRS, students learn words through movement and gestures. They hear words over and over again; they don't just see them on a worksheet or two. From the beginning students develop a real ear for the language and find themselves able to actually use it in real settings, something that many students cannot do after years of studying a language in a more traditional classroom. Students with learning disabilities, attention problems, or personal problems that get in the way of learning often thrive in friendly, fun, student-centered atmosphere of a TPRS classroom. With TPRS, students constantly experience the rewarding feeling of learning. This is incredibly motivating for those students who often struggle in school. One problem that TPRS teachers can face is that some higher achieving students will complain that the class is too easy. Much of the learning that goes on in a TPRS classroom is rather effortless and natural. These students have come to equate pain and tedium with learning. It is important to show frequently to all students just how much they are learning.
4|Page
Literature review The first published article on TPRS, Davidheiser’s (2001) “The ABCs of TPR Storytelling” is not a controlled research study, but a report of Davidheiser’s experiences using TPRS in college German classes. He finds that particularly in the first few years of language instruction, TPRS improves pronunciation and vocabulary memory, reduces anxiety, is a natural way to learn language, promotes active learning, and is good for different types of learners. Davidheiser also integrates grammar instruction with TPRS in upper levels. Braunstein (2006) did a research study on student attitudes towards TPRS in a class of 15 adult ESL students. These students told Braunstein that what they expected from English class was traditional instruction including grammar, lecture, and written work. But after two lessons taught with TPRS, students responded that they felt “interest,” “enthusiasm,” and “happiness,” and did not feel “embarrassed,” “bored,” or “stupid.” They reported that TPRS helped them to remember vocabulary and understand English. This study provides evidence that students — even those who expect a different kind of language teaching — are likely to respond positively to TPRS. Watson (2009) compared two beginning high school Spanish classes taught with TPRS to one class taught with more traditional methods. The students took a written final exam with questions on listening comprehension, vocabulary and grammar, and reading comprehension, and a district-wide oral exam. TPRS students scored significantly better than traditional students on both tests. Also, the distribution (range of grades) was wider in the traditional classes. Varguez (2009) compared four beginning high school Spanish classes: two receiving traditional instruction and two receiving TPRS instruction. One of the TPRS classrooms also happened to be socioeconomically disadvantaged and have a less experienced teacher. Students
5|Page
in the study took a standardized test which measured listening comprehension and reading comprehension. Varguez also included a longer reading passage adapted from the New York State Regents exam. The poorer TPRS class performed statistically the same as the richer traditional districts on all three tests, which is surprising since socioeconomic status is a strong predictor of academic success. But the TPRS class that matched the traditional classes on demographic variables significantly outperformed the traditional classes on all three tests.
Method Material As participants in this study are of two types; students and teachers, two sets of material were used. The first set includes a 16-item checklist filled in by 20 native and non-native teachers who watched a video for the session held by the teacher. The second set includes a short story and 10-MCQs grammar test that students were asked to answer in order to test their understanding and their grammaral competence of the past simple and past continuous tenses. In the former, students were asked to write the short story that was presented to them in the first session, whereas the latter included 10 MCQs about past simple and past continuous tenses. Both tests were conducted during a two-hour class session under the supervision of the researcher. The rubric was used for evaluating the short story is an adapted version of the rubric used by the Testing Unit, ELC, DAS, Taibah University with a maximum score of five.
Participants The original pool of participants for this study consists of 25 male Saudi beginner students who are native speakers of Arabic, 11 non-native teachers, and 9 native teachers. The
6|Page
students are enrolled in the prep-year, Deanery of Academic Services, Taibah University. The prep-year is the first year in Saudi universities, where English is one of the main subjects studied to enhance students English proficiency and prepare them for their university academic studies. Before students are enrolled on this programme, they sit for a placement test according to which they are divided into high beginners (A group) and low beginners (B group). Both groups go through Touchstone 1 and 2 (001) in the first semester and Touchstone 3 and 4 (002) in the second semester. The teachers included in the study are all ELC teachers in Taibah University who teach Prep-Year students the previously mentioned course. Some student participants were eliminated for failing to attend 95% of the time allotted for the experiment which is a total of 4 teaching hours. Consequently, 5 participants were excluded from the study, yielding a final sample consisting of 20 students.
Procedures A group of twenty five students were given the past simple and past continuous tenses in two 50-minute sessions utilizing the TPRS approach accompanied with a PowerPoint presentation. The grammar lesson was presented through a short story that includes some new vocabulary to the students. The new words were presented on the screen with some illustrative pictures through the PowerPoint presentation. The new words and the past verbs were assigned gestures through which the students could easily practice and acquire them. The students practiced the vocabulary using the words and the gestures in groups then in pairs. Then, the teacher narrated the whole story twice accompanied by the gestures. Finally, the teacher gave the gestures only and the students narrated the story orally while watching the teacher's gestures. Students were asked not to practice the story until the next day. Next day, in other two 50-minute
7|Page
sessions the students were asked to work in pairs and tell the story they learnt. Individual students were chosen randomly to tell the story to the class. Other students were chosen randomly to give the gestures in front of the class and let their colleagues tell the story. After that all students were asked to work individually to write the whole story. Finally, the students were asked to answer a 10-MCQ grammar test about the past simple and past continuous tenses. The two sessions were videod and the clip was shown to a group of 20 native and non-native English language teachers. The teachers were asked to fill in a checklist that includes items about TPRS and the learner-centered approach traits. The scores of the students in the two tests and the responses of the teachers were all analysed quantitatively.
Results The data collected in the present study was all quantitative. The quantitative data of the scores of students’ writing and grammar test were analysed in terms of means and frequency, using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and percentages. On one hand, the scores of the writing test are taken as an indication to students’ writing proficiency while the grammar test indicates the students’ grammatical competency in the past simple test. The correlation between the two mentioned variables (writing proficiency and grammar competency) is calculated. On the other hand, the teachers’ responses were analysed in terms of frequency only. The analysis of the scores of students’ writing and the grammar tests by means of descriptive statistics is shown as follows:
8|Page
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the students’s writing scores
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of the students’s grammar scores
Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Writing Scores
20
3
5
4.35
Std.
Deviation .745
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Grammar Scores
20
3
5
4.60
.598
As shown in table 1, the mean score of the writing test is 4.35 with (3) as minimum score and (5) as maximum score. The frequency of the minimum and maximum score is show below however standad deviation of the writing scores is (.745). it is also clear in table 2 that the mean score for the grammar test is 4.6 with the same minimum and maximum scores as in the writing test.
Table 3: Correlation between students writing efficiency and their grammar competency Writing Writing
Pearson Correlation
Grammar 1
Sig. (2-tailed) N Grammar
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
.449* .047
20
20
.449*
1
.047 20
20
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The above table shows the correlation between the scores of the grammar test as an independent variable and the scores of students’ writing as a dependant variable. It is clear that there is a positive correlation between the scores of both tests at the level of 0.05. This means that students competency of the past simple and past continuous tenses affected positively their writing proficiency when writing the short story. 9|Page
Chart 1: Frequency of students' scores in the wri;ng test three
four
Chart 2: Frequency of students' scores in the grammar MCQs
five
three
four
five
5%
15%
30%
50% 35%
65%
Chart 1 shows the frequency of the students’ scores in the writing test. 15% of the students included in the study got the minimum score (3) while 50% of the students got the full mark (5). In chart 2, it is clear that only 5% of the students got the minimum score (3) and 65% got the full mark (5).
Table 4: Frequency of teacher's responses to the checklist Item
Yes
No
The teacher used gestures & facial expressions appropriately.
90%
10%
The teacher used “Elicitation”.
95%
5%
The teacher kept attracting students’ attention throughout the session.
75%
25%
The teacher shifted students from controlled to free practice.
80%
20%
The teacher emphasized the incorrect responses.
85%
15%
The teacher used variation of repetition.
70%
30%
The teacher used technology appropriately in terms of time, clarity of presentation, and attractiveness.
90%
10%
The attention of the students is focused on the material.
85%
15%
The students are active learners & motivated enough.
90%
10%
The students went through the 4 STAGES of effective presentation.
80%
20%
The 3 STAGES of Harmer’s learning process were covered.
85%
15%
There is no fossilization.
75%
25%
There is enough group and pair work
95%
5%
The classroom was noisy and students were always busy but the noise was
90%
10%
10 | P a g e
healthy and helped increase students' autonomy. Self correction and peer correction helped in making the class more studentcentered.
90%
10%
Table 4 shows the percentages of the teachers’ responses to the chcklist that they filled while watching the video. It is clear that the majority of them agree that the teacher applied most of the traits of the TPRS which in turn causes the learning to be student-centered. 90% agree that the teacher used gestures & facial expressions appropriately, used elicitation, used technology appropriately, and gave enough chance for Self correction and peer correction. The same percentage also agrees that there was healthy noisy that increased students’ autonomy, there is enough group and pair work, and that the students were active and motivated learners. 80% and more agree that the teacher shifted students from controlled to free practice, emphasized the incorrect responses, followed the 4 STAGES of effective presentation.
Discussion The results obviously show that the TPR Storytelling method helps much in facilitating and accelerating the learning process. In addition, it helps easily and smoothly move from understanding to memorizing and finally to acquiring the new words and the past simple verbs in a very short time. This is clear when students could orally recall the story and then write it the next day without doing any practice after the first session. The results of students’ writing, though not compared with previous compositions, shaw that the students being beginners made great achievement; 50% of them got the full mark while 35% lost only one mark. Moreover, the gestures add fun to the sessions and students are more motivated to learn and more interested in the lesson itself. This is assured by the teachers responses; 90% of the teachers agree that the students are active learners and are motivated enough and 75% of the teachers agree that 11 | P a g e
students’ attention is attracted troughout the session. This goes with Davidheiser’s (2001) belief that TPRS reduces anxiety, is a natural way to learn language, promotes active learning, and is good for different types of learners. The results of the study are also supported by the opinion of the ESL students is Braunstein’s (2006) study where they felt “interest,” “enthusiasm,” and “happiness,” and did not feel “embarrassed,” “bored,” or “stupid.” This unconscious learning which is accompanied with group and pair work gives chance to unmotivated and low level students to learn, practice and acquire the new lesson easily which in turn gives them more confidence. As students become more confident, they will do more and more student-centered work. In a student-centered classroom, students are involved in the learning process and become committed to improving their English. Different learning styles can be accommodated, and students can help each other to develop their skills. Hence, this approach helps dealing with a hetrogeneous group of students in a way that makes them all motivated, confident and active learners. This is clear when higher level students helped lower level ones to do the gestures and to tell the story orally through peer correction; a point that served minimizing teacher -talk time and maximizing student-talk time. The teacher here is a facilitator, monitor and mentor more than being a lecturer. This is evident through the questions asked by the teacher all the time to make sure that students understand and are engaged. However, the teacher himself used variations of repitition as agreed by 70% of the observing teachers and emphaseized incorrect responses as agreed by 85% of them. The scores of the students in the writing and the grammar MCQs prove that the majority could really not only understand but also acquire the new vocabulary and master using the past simple verbs presented to them in the first session.
12 | P a g e
The teachers' feedback shows that they are convinced that TPRS is considered to be one of the best methods when teaching begginers. 80% of the teachers agree that students were shifted smoothly from controlled to free practice. 90% of them agree that the healthy disciplined noise and the chance given for self and peer correction help much in making the class more student-centered and add to learner's autonomy.
Conclusion: The study attempts to address one major issue, namely “Using TPRS in a learnercentered classroom�. Based on the findings mentioned above, it quite clearly shows that TPRS method helps much in making the learning process more students-centered and more communicative. It also proves that not only vocabulary but also grammar can be taught effectively through the TPRS method. Finally, they study reflects the positive effect of TPRS on students’ writing proficiency and grammar competency. However, one of the limitations of the study is that the participants are drawn from one level of language experience. Therefore, findings should not be extrapolated to other levels of language experience, although these are areas that hold promise for further investigation. Another limitation that refers to the Saudi culture could be the impossibility of using female subjects in the study as no male teacher is allowed to teach female students face to face in Saudi Arabia.
13 | P a g e
References: Asher, J. (1977a). Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete Teacher's Guidebook. Los Gatos, Calif: Sky Oaks Productions. Cantoni, Gina (1999). "Chapter 5: Using TPR-Storytelling to Develop Fluency and Literacy in Native American Languages". In Reyhner, Jon; Cantoni, Gina; St. Clair, Robert et al. Revitalizing Indigenous Languages. Northern Arizona University, College of Education. pp. 53–58. ISBN 0-9670554-0-7. Retrieved 2012-4-14 Davies, Mark (2006). A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish: Core Vocabulary for Learners. Routledge: London. Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J.R. & Land, S.M. (1997). Student-Centered Learning and Interactive Multimedia: Status, Issues, and Implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-97. Retrieved February 18, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/83620. Harmer, Jeremy. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman. Johnson, Keith. (1996). Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Leo, Jones. (2007). The Student-Centered Classroom. Cambridge University Press. Richards, J., Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Ur, Penny. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14 | P a g e
Appendixes Appendix 1: Activity plan Name
A Strange Day
Level
Beginners
Description
This is a group of sentences learnt separately through Total Physical Response method integrated with pictures and PowerPoint presentation. These sentences are joined to tell a whole story which should be written afterwards to practice the grammar and vocabulary they are currently learning. Speaking - Writing (sentences & stories) Vocabulary Enrichment – Sentence formation – Storytelling
Skills Type Duration Objective
Preparation
Procedure
Evaluation / Feedback
Two sessions (50 minutes each) 1st session to present the sentences and write them. 2nd session to create the story and to practice it. By the end of the activity Ss can 1- tell a whole story and write it correctly. 2- answer written & oral questions about the story. 3- Use the past simple and past continuous tenses correctly. • A PowerPoint Presentation including the targeted sentences and illustrating pictures. • A printed out story illustrated by pictures for the targeted sentences. • Assigned gestures for the targeted words and sentences. Instructions: 1. The teacher present the targeted words and sentences orally through the PowerPoint presentation accompanied with a gesture for each targeted word and sentence. (10 minutes) 2. The teacher gives the gestures and the students give the word or the sentence of each gesture. (7 minutes) 3. The teacher gives the words and sentences and the students give the gesture for each word or sentence. (7 minutes) 4. Students are divided into pairs. 5. One of each pair of students gives the gesture and the other gives the word or the sentence. Then, they exchange their roles. (10 minutes) 6. Students write the sentences. (5 minutes) Variations: The difficulty level and the number of words and sentences are determined according to students’ level. The teacher can use this activity to teach words only or to teach sentences as well. Ss can be evaluated on different scales throughout the activity; T Ss can understand the story. T Ss can act the story. T Ss can tell the story. T Ss can write the story. If you want to do some specific language work, note down some of the problems students have with language and use these for a focus-on-form slot afterwards.
15 | P a g e
Appendix 2: Worksheet
Once, I went home. I found the roof was leaking and the wall was cracked. I was astonished, what happened? I decided to take a shower. I went to the bathroom. I found the water heater was not working and the power was out. I was astonished, what happened? I went to the garden. I found the window was broken and the door lock was also broken. I was astonished, what happened?
NOW, write what happened in each picture: 1- …………………………………………………… 2- ……………………………………………………
3-………………………
4-………………………
5-………………………
6-………………………
16 | P a g e
Appendix 3: Writing Test
Write a short story of not less than 150 words about “A Strange Day that you once went through”. You can make use of the following verbs in the tense appropriate to your story: (find – leak – crack – decide – work – happen – fix)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
17 | P a g e
Appendix 4: Grammar Test Choose the correct answer from a, b, c, or d: 1. A stone hit the window and ............................. the glass. a. crack b. cracked c. were cracking d. was cracking
2. No one knows exactly what ........................ but several people were hurt. a. happening b. happenings c. happened d. happen
3. Yesterday, I ............................. a ten-pound note in my pocket. a. was finding b. was found c. find d. found
4. She ............................. as a cleaner at the hospital since it was established. a. was working b. were working c. work d. was worked
5. Water ............................. from the pipe.
6. They could ............................. my old computer but I bought a new one. a. fixing b. fixed c. was fixing d. fix
a. b. c. d.
was leaking leaked leak were leaking
7. He ............................. not to buy the bedroom. a. was deciding b. decided c. decide d. deciding
8. I ............................. by how much she'd grown. a. astonished b. was astonishing c. was astonished d. astonish
9. I dropped the vase and it ............................. into pieces. a. break b. were breaking c. broke d. was breaking
10. While I ............................. to the university, the car broke down. a. Went b. was going c. go d. were going
18 | P a g e
Appendix 5: A 15-item checklist (while-viewing) Item 1. The teacher used gestures & facial expressions appropriately.
Yes
No
90%
10%
95%
5%
75%
25%
80%
20%
85%
15%
70%
30%
90%
10%
85%
15%
90%
10%
80%
20%
85%
15%
75%
25%
95%
5%
14. The classroom was noisy and students were always busy but the noise was healthy and helped increase students' autonomy.
90%
10%
15. Self correction and peer correction helped in making the class more student-centered.
90%
10%
2. The teacher used “Elicitation”. 3. The teacher kept attracting students’ attention throughout the session. 4. The teacher shifted students from controlled to free practice. 5. The teacher emphasized the incorrect responses. 6. The teacher used variation of repetition. 7. The teacher used technology appropriately in terms of time, clarity of presentation, and attractiveness. 8. The attention of the students is focused on the material. 9. The students are active learners & motivated enough. 10. The students went through the 4 STAGES of effective presentation. 11. The 3 STAGES of Harmer’s learning process were covered. 12. There is no fossilization. 13. There is enough group and pair work
19 | P a g e