THE FURTHER EXPLANATION OF TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE (TPR) METHOD AND DIRECT METHOD By Fernandes Arung, 2012 A. The Background and Principles 1. The Principles of Total Physical Response (TPR) Method TPR is a method of teaching language using physical movement to react to verbal input in order to reduce student inhibitions and lower their affective filter (stress). TPR was originated and developed by DR James J. Asher who is a professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University. DR Asher observed that the dropout rate of second language students in a traditional program is often as high as 95%. He wondered why so many people have a hard time learning a second language although almost no one has any trouble while learning their first language. According to Asher, TPR is based on the premise that the human brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign language of the deaf. The process is visible when we observe how infants internalize their first language. The method relies on the assumption that when learning a second or additional language, language is internalized through a process of code breaking similar to first language development and that the process allows for a long period of listening and developing comprehension prior to production. Students respond to commands that require physical movement. TPR is primarily used by ESL/EAL teachers, although the method is used in teaching other languages as well. The method became popular in the 1970s and attracted the attention or allegiance of some teachers, but it has not received generalized support from mainstream educators. Here are some principles of TPR that should be put into account when we are teaching Foreign Language by using this method: It is essential to prepare a script for what you want to do, as it is extremely important not to change the language half way through. It is also important to 1
recombine previously learned language in new ways. These factors, combined with the pace necessary for successful TPR instruction, mean that it is extremely difficult to improvise the commands. TPR instruction should be seen as a progression, with new language being added to and combined with the old every session. On a similar note, previously learned language should be reviewed and cycled into lessons constantly in order to reinforce it. While it can be useful to introduce synonyms, it is extremely important that the language not be changed half-way through a session. This is extremely confusing for students. In order for students to relax and feel comfortable, during TPR practice the teacher should project a friendly and positive manner. It is very important to limit the number of new items in order to avoid student overload and to allow students to process and absorb the language. New and old language should be manipulated in a variety of ways in order to give students a large amount of practice. Once students are used to TPR practice, introducing a limited amount of humor into the class can greatly increase students interest and enjoyment. Students should not be forced to repeat the commands or otherwise speak until they are ready. Students should not need help with the TPR commands, as the meaning should be obvious from context/the teachers' explanation/previously learned language. Translating commands into Japanese reverts to left brain input, and the benefits of TPR are lost. Student listening abilities are also not improved. The goals are to provide an enjoyable learning experience, having a minimum of the stress that typically accompanies learning a foreign language. The teacher gives commands and students follow them. Once students are ready to speak, they take on directing roles. Lessons begin with commands by the teacher and students demonstrate their understanding by acting these out. Teachers recombine their instructions in novel 2
and often humorous ways, and eventually students follow suit. Activities later include games and skits. The method was developed principally to reduce the stress associated with language learning. Students are not forced to speak before they are ready and learning is made as enjoyable as possible, stimulating feelings of success and low anxiety. Oral modality is primary and culture is the lifestyle of native speakers of the target language. Grammatical structures and vocabulary are emphasized, imbedded in imperatives. Understanding precedes production. Spoken language precedes the written words. Method is introduced in students native language, but rarely used later in course. Meaning is made clear through actions. Teachers can evaluate students through simple observation of their actions. Formal evaluation is achieved by commanding a student to perform a series of actions. Students are expected to make errors once they begin speaking. Teachers only correct major errors and do this unobtrusively. Fine turning occurs later. 2. The Principles of Direct Method The Direct Method is an approach to language acquisition also known as Reform Method / Natural Method / Phonetical Method / Anti-grammatical Method. All reformers were vehemently opposed to teaching of formal grammar and aware that language learning was more than the learning of rules and the acquisition of imperfect translation skills. Vietor ('Die Sprachunterricht muss umkehren' 1882) "This study of grammar is a useless torture. It is certainly not understood; therefore it can have no effect as far as the molding of the intellect is concerned and no-one could seriously believe that children could learn their living German tongue from it." Instead grammar should be acquired inductively by inducing the rules of how the language behaves from the actual language itself. "Never tell the children anything they can find out for themselves." (Jesperin 1904). In the terminology of language 3
education, L1 refers to a student's native or primary language, and L2 refers to the "target language" that a student is trying to learn. The Direct Method - also known as the Berlitz Method - is an approach to language acquisition in which only L2 is used in the classroom, and L1 is not used at all. Up until the late nineteenth century, second language acquisition was based on an approach called the Grammar Translation Method, which is still widely used in some schools although it has largely been replaced by other methods. The Grammar Translation Method was based on the study of dead languages such as Classical Greek and Latin. It emphasized rote memorization of vocabulary lists and rules of grammar, and it tended to produce students with little to no ability to actually communicate in the target language. This wasn't a problem for a dead language such as Latin, but it was not a very effective way to teach a language like French or Spanish that can still be used in daily life. In the late 1800s, educators developed a new approach called the Direct Method. Gouin had been one of the first of the nineteenth-century reformers to attempt to build a methodology around observation of child language learning. Other reformers toward the end of the century likewise turned their attention to naturalistic principles of language learning, and for this reason they are sometimes referred to as advocates of a "natural" method. In fact at various times throughout the history of language teaching, attempts have been made to make second language learning more like first language learning. In the sixteenth century, for example, Montaigne described how he was entrusted to a guardian who addressed him exclusively in Latin for the first years of his life, since Montaigne's father wanted his son to speak Latin well. Among those who tried to apply natural principles to language classes in the nineteenth century was L. Sauveur (1826-1907), who used intensive oral interaction in the target language, employing questions as a way of presenting and eliciting language. He opened a language school in Boston in the late 1860s, and his method soon became referred to as the Natural Method. Sauveur and other believers in the Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the learner's native tongue if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and action. The German scholar F. Franke wrote on the psychological principles of direct association between 4
forms and meanings in the target language (1884) and provided a theoretical justification for a monolingual approach to teaching. According to Franke, a language could best be taught by using it actively in the classroom. Rather than using analytical procedures that focus on explanation of grammar rules in classroom teaching, teachers must encourage direct and spontaneous use of the foreign language in the classroom. Learners would then be able to induce rules of grammar. The teacher replaced the textbook in the early stages of learning. Speaking began with systematic attention to pronunciation. Known words could be used to teach new vocabulary, using mime, demonstration, and pictures. These natural language learning principles provided the foundation for what came to be known as the Direct Method, which refers to the most widely known of the natural methods. Enthusiastic supporters of the Direct Method introduced it in France and Germany (it was officially approved in both countries at the turn of the century), and it became widely known in the United States through its use by Sauveur and Maximilian Berlitz in successful commercial language schools. (Berlitz, in fact, never used the term; he referred to the method used in his schools as the Berlitz Method.) The direct method was an answer to the dissatisfaction with the older grammar translation method, which teaches students grammar and vocabulary through direct translations and thus focuses on the written language. There was an attempt to set up conditions that imitate mother tongue acquisition, which is why the beginnings of these attempts were called the natural method. At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, Sauveur and Franke proposed that language teaching should be undertaken within the target-language system, which was the first stimulus for the rise of the Direct Method. The followings are the principles of Direct Method: The Direct Method is based on the idea that the goal of learning a second language is to be able to communicate in that language. The Direct Method takes first language acquisition as its template for second language acquisition. When babies are learning to talk, they do not have any other language to help them with the learning process: only the target language is ever used, and the baby picks up 5
grammar, structure and vocabulary by using a language and hearing it used, without reference to grammatical theory. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded progression organized around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes. Grammar was taught inductively. New teaching points were introduced orally. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized. Student should be speaking approximately 80% of the time during the lesson. Students are taught from inception to ask questions as well as answer them. B. The Advantages 1. The Advantages of Total Physical Response (TPR) Method Students whether children or adults, are able to pick up and learn languages better and faster if they associate a physical act to a certain word. This is also very useful for children because children like to give response by using physical response first better than using verbal response. It is fun and easy. Students will enjoy getting up out of their chairs and moving around. Simple TPR activities do not require a great deal of preparation on the part of the teacher. However, some other more complex applications might. It is good for kinesthetic learners who need to be active in the class. It is a good tool for building vocabulary. It is good to stimulate children s to learn. This method can facilitate students with the meaning in real context. It is memorable. Actions help strengthen the connections in the brain. 6
It does not require a great deal of preparation on the part of the teacher although teacher should be willing to create conducive learning. Class size does not need to be a problem. It does not pay big role. Help the students immediately understand the target language. TPR is inclusive and works well a class with mixed ability levels. Helps learners achieve fluency faster by immersing learners in activities that involve them in situational language use. Good instructional practice for ESL s in their silent period. Works well for child and adult learners. TPR seems to work effectively for children and adults. There is no age barrier according to Asher. The only setback is that if the language training starts after puberty, the probability is almost certain that one will have at least some accent in speaking the second language, no matter how many years one lives in the foreign country. It benefits the English speaking students who have little academic reinforcement at home. It benefits the Struggling students. Teachers are noticing growth in students learning, and boosting the academic levels in their classrooms. Creates positive thinking which facilitates the student to involve in learning process, so it can develop not only motivation but also the aim of students in learning. 2. The Advantages of Direct Method It can be very effective at creating fluent speakers of the target language who can actually use it to get by in day-to-day situations. It concentrates on giving the student an intellectual understanding of how the target language is structured rather than a direct experiential understanding. It mimics the natural experience of acquiring a first language, rather than approaching language acquisition as an artificial exercise. It is ideal when presented in a small-class environment. 7
It makes the learning of English interesting and lively by establishing direct bond between a word and its meaning. It is an activity method facilitating alertness and participation of the pupils. According to Mac née, "It is the quickest way of getting started". In a few months over 500 of the commonest English words can be learnt and used in sentences. This serves as a strong foundation of further learning. Due to application of the Direct Method, students are able to understand what they learn, think about it and then express their own ideas in correct English about what they have read and learnt. Psychologically it is a sound method as it proceeds from the concrete to the abstract. This method can be usefully employed from the lowest to the highest class. Through this method, fluency of speech, good pronunciation and power of expression are properly developed. It can be said that it is a natural method where the language is taught through demonstration and context. Students are encouraged to think in English. Therefore, they are more likely to acquire fluency in speech since they concentrate in expressing themselves through English rather than understanding English. Students speak or write the foreign language without the need of translating their thought or idea from the mother tongue into the second language. One more advantage is that the Direct Method believes that one way to learn a language is to use this method. Practical, richer and more advanced vocabulary Students can remember new vocabulary better and use it in a greater number of contexts (various uses, grammatical structures, collocations). The students are able to use English in a more creative way rather than mechanically memorize isolated sentences. It has numerous grammar exercises. This is very specific learning targets. 8
Students are told reasons why content is important - helps to clarify lesson objective. It is relatively easy to measure student gains. It is a widely accepted instructional method. It is good for teaching specific facts and basic skills. It will enable the students in the future to understand conversations in a foreign language made at a natural speed. C. The Disadvantages 1. The Disadvantages of Total Physical Response (TPR) Method Whilst it can be used at higher levels TPR is most useful for beginners. It is also at the higher levels where preparation becomes an issue for the teacher. Students are not generally given the opportunity to express their own thoughts in a creative way. It is easy to overuse TPR. "Any novelty, if carried on too long, will trigger adaptation." Asher writes, "No matter how exciting and productive the innovation, people will tire of it." The teacher may find that it is limited in terms of language scope. Certain target languages may not be suited to this method. It can be a challenge for shy students. It is not a very creative method. Students are not given the opportunity to express their own views and thoughts in a creative way. It is limited, since everything cannot be explained with this method. It must be combined with other approaches. The method emphasizes imperative constructions, which may lead to the future inappropriate and rude language of the learner. 2. The Disadvantages of Direct Method There are many abstract words which cannot be interpreted directly in English and much time and energy are wasted in making attempts for the purpose. 9
This method is based on the principles that auditory appeal is stronger that visual. But there are children who learn more with visual than with their oral- aural sense like ears and tongue. The method ignores systematic written work and reading activities and sufficient attention is not paid to reading and writing. Since in this method, grammar is closely bound up with the reader, difficulty is experienced in providing readers of such kind. There is dearth of teachers trained and interested in teaching English in this method. This method may not hold well in higher classes where the Translation Method is found suitable. In larger classes, this method is not properly applied and teaching in this method does not suit or satisfy the needs of individual students in large classes. It can stifle teacher creativity. It requires well-organized content preparation and good oral communication skills. Steps must be followed in prescribed order. It may not be effective for higher-order thinking skills, depending on the knowledge base and skill of the teacher. D. The Language Components Involved 1. The Skill and Language Components (skills) Involved in TPR Method In this method, the basic skill of language -- Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing -- is involved. The Listening Skill involves the Language Components such as Phonology, Vocabulary, and Grammar. The Speaking Skill involves the Language Components such as Phonology, Vocabulary, and Grammar. The Reading Skill involves the Language Components such as Phonology, Vocabulary, and Grammar. 10
The Writing Skill involves the Language Components such as Vocabulary and Grammar. 2. The Skill or Language Components Involved in Direct Method This method only presents three skills, they are Listening, Speaking, and Reading and involves Phonology and Vocabulary as the language components of each skill or Language Performance. Involving Phonology in this method to refer to the system that pronunciation is needed to be emphasized. Vocabulary is taught through demonstration or pantomiming, real objects, and pictures although it is just all about everyday vocabulary while grammar is taught inductively (i.e. having learners find out rules through the presentation of adequate linguistic forms in the target language) to avoid involving the application of MT (Machine Translation). The writing skill or written words is not significant in primary. It should be delayed due to the printed words have not been introduced. Printed words must be kept away from second language learner for as long as possible (same as first language learner, who doesn't use printed word until he has good grasp of speech). E. The Application in Learning Process Implementing these two methods is more than simply understanding them. Although many premises show that each method has some advantages and it is successful in certain learning process but there are still few critics being exposed lately. Neither in Indonesia nor in other countries has that English become a Foreign Language still get all things being equal as the fact that is difficult in implementation. Indeed the Direct Method was quite successful in private language schools, such as those of the Berlitz chain, where paying clients had high motivation and the use of native-speaking teachers was the norm. Compared to the state of learning in Indonesia, it has no significant differences with the above circumstances, more else in public schools, native speaking teachers are rare so it is hard to apply these methods on an ongoing basis in certain circumstances. This is also determined by the skills and expertise of teachers to make these methods succeed in its implementation. But despite pressure from proponents of the method, it was difficult to implement in public secondary school education. It overemphasized and distorted the similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom foreign 11
language learning and failed to consider the practical realities of the classroom. In addition, it lacked a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory, and for this reason it was often criticized by the more academically based proponents of the Reform Movement. The Direct Method represented the product of enlightened amateurism. It was perceived to have several drawbacks. First, it required teachers who were native speakers or who had native like fluency in the foreign language. It was largely dependent on the teacher's skill, rather than on a textbook, and not all teachers were proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere to the principles of the method. Critics pointed out that strict adherence to Direct Method principles was often counterproductive, since teachers were required to go to great lengths to avoid using the native tongue, when sometimes a simple brief explanation in the student's native tongue would have been a more efficient route to comprehension. The Harvard psychologist Roger Brown has documented similar problems with strict Direct Method techniques. He described his frustration in observing a teacher performing verbal gymnastics in an attempt to convey the meaning of Japanese words, when translation would have been a much more efficient technique to use. By the 1920s, use of the Direct Method in noncommercial schools in Europe had consequently declined. In France and Germany it was gradually modified into versions that combined some Direct Method techniques with more controlled grammar-based activities. The European popularity of the Direct Method in the early part of the twentieth century caused foreign language specialists in the United States to attempt to have it implemented in American schools and colleges, although they decided to move with caution. A study begun in 1923 on the state of foreign language teaching concluded that no single method could guarantee successful results. The goal of trying to teach conversation skills was considered impractical in view of the restricted time available for foreign language teaching in schools, the limited skills of teachers, and the perceived irrelevance of conversation skills in a foreign language for the average American college student. The study - published as the Coleman Report - advocated that a more reasonable goal for a foreign language course would be a reading knowledge of a foreign language, achieved through the gradual introduction of words and grammatical structures in simple reading texts. The main result of this recommendation was that reading became the goal of most foreign language programs in the United States 12
(Coleman 1929). The emphasis on reading continued to characterize foreign language teaching in the United States until World War II. Although the Direct Method enjoyed popularity in Europe, not everyone had embraced it enthusiastically. The British applied linguist Henry Sweet had recognized its limitations. It offered innovations at the level of teaching procedures but lacked a thorough methodological basis. Its main focus was on the exclusive use of the target language in the classroom, but it failed to address many issues that Sweet thought more basic. Sweet and other applied linguists argued for the development of sound methodological principles that could serve as the basis for teaching techniques. In the 1920s and 1930s applied linguists systematized the principles proposed earlier by the Reform Movement and so laid the foundations for what developed into the British approach to teaching English as a foreign language. Subsequent developments led to Audio-lingualism in the United States and the Oral Approach or Situational Language Teaching in Britain. F. Conclusion All kinds of methods are good, including both TPR and Direct method but none of the most of all, it is absolutely influenced by several factors such as the circumstances and conditions of class, level of education, students' psychology, students' cognitive, students' psychomotor, students' affective, teachers resources and time. In other word, there is no single strategy, method, technique or whatever it is called referring to teaching method in all circumstances, however, it depends only on that time of teaching process. 13