Method

A Comparison of TPRS and

Traditional Foreign Language Two methods were compared. The TPRS class was
Instruction at the High School Level typical of what is described in Ray and Seely (2008),
with a focus on stimulating language acquisition by
providing comprehensible input through storytelling.
The version of TPRS used in this study is what
by Barbara J. Watson Krashen (personal communication) calls “modified
Naperville Community School District TPRS/natural approach,” with each story containing
a certain amount of target vocabulary and grammar,
Barbara Watson in this case three to four new words and one point of
received her Ma Ed from grammar.
Benedictine University,
Lisle, IL. Barbara is
The focus of the traditional class was on conscious
a secondary education
teacher in Naperville, IL learning, with a great deal of the instructional time
and is currently teaching dedicated to helping students understand grammatical
level I and level II concepts through explanations in English. Other
Spanish. techniques were also used such as short interviews,
student-to-student question and answer exercises and
the flyswatter game to identify and review vocabulary.
This teacher also incorporated technology into lessons
and had students work on photo or video projects.
Introduction Technology was also used to present information
and to explain grammar.  Questioning techniques
TPRS (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and
and personalized questions were used, but TPR
Storytelling) was developed by Blaine Ray in the early
Storytelling was not used in class.
1990’s (Ray and Seely, 2008). It is the most recent
comprehension-based method to emerge in the US, Both groups read every week and had reading
preceded by TPR (Total Physical Response, Asher, assignments outside of class. The traditional class
2000) and the Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell, read Pobre Ana by Blaine Ray. The TPRS class
1983). It is similar to previous methods in emphasizing read both Pobre Ana and Patricia va a California by
comprehensible input, not forcing students to speak Blaine Ray as class readers.
at levels beyond their current competence, and not
engaging in heavy grammar instruction or error To determine the fidelity of the treatment, four
correction. TPRS goes beyond previous methods by sessions of each kind of instruction were audio-
emphasizing stories, a powerful means of developing taped. The tapes were analyzed to probe the use
language and literacy (e.g. Trelease, 2006). of questioning techniques, vocabulary repetition,
the amount of group work done, and the teacher’s
A number of studies have shown that students in language when doing whole-group teaching. One class
comprehension-based methods typically outperform period that was considered the most representative of
traditional students on measures of communication that teacher’s typical teaching style was analyzed in
and do as well or better on tests of grammar (Krashen, detail.
1982, 2003). TPRS, however, has not yet been put to
the empirical test. That is the goal of this study.

Research Index • Teacher-to-Teacher Index • Submission Info • Contact Us • Subscription Info

Page 21 The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching © Summer 2009

 Subjects Students were allowed to pass on cards up to three
times if they felt they could not explain the word.
Subjects were seventy-three high school students
enrolled in first year Spanish in 2007-2008. Twenty- Students were rated on a scale of zero to three on
three were enrolled in the traditionally taught class, overall communication efficacy, including vocabulary,
and fifty were enrolled in two sections of a TPRS fluency and comprehension, on a zero to two scale on
class. The same teacher taught both TPRS classes, “strategic competence” (use of verbal and non-verbal
and a different teacher taught the traditional class. strategies to negotiate meaning), and on a zero to two
All classes were in a high-income area school, with scale for sociolinguistic competence (e.g, appropriate
only 3.2% of the students classified as low-income, use of informal tu/formal usted). The students’ overall
compared to the state average of 40.9%. score was then used to arrive at an overall rating
ranging from zero to three (native speaker level).
Only 4% of the students in the TPRS classes spoke
Spanish at home or used Spanish frequently outside All students in each class were tested by the same
of school. Fifteen percent of the traditional students rater, and different raters were used for each class. No
spoke Spanish at home or used Spanish frequently student was rated by his or her own teacher.
outside of school.
No measure of inter-rater reliability was possible
because each student was rated by only one rater, but
Measures all raters had attended training sessions on the use of
the scoring rubric and had agreed on the criteria used.
Two measures were given at the end of the school year,
a final exam and an oral examination. Students were also asked to estimate how much
homework they did for their Spanish class on
The final exam consisted of the following sections: a questionnaire administered with the final
Listening: Students viewed and listened to a video and examination.
indicated whether statements based on the content were
true or false and chose answers to statements based on Results
the video.
Vocabulary and Grammar: Students were required to Fidelity of Treatment
fill in the blank in sentences, choosing from several
options. Analysis of the audiotapes confirmed that the
Reading: Students were asked to read ten sentences traditional and TPRS classes were very different.
and decide whether the statements were probable
or improbable. They were also asked to read two The TPRS teacher asked 141 questions throughout
passages and answer comprehension questions. the analyzed class period. The traditional teacher
asked eighteen questions during the first ten minutes
The reliability of the final exam using the KR-21 of the class session and did not ask questions for the
formula was a modest .67. This test, the only one that remainder of the period.
could be used with this data, typically underestimates
reliability (Brigham Young University, 1997). The TPRS class was teacher-fronted 68% of the time,
with input nearly entirely in the second language. The
The oral assessment was the same as the measure traditional class was teacher-fronted 29% of the time,
used district-wide. For the oral examination, students with the language of instruction a mix of Spanish and
were asked to randomly choose a card with an English English.
word (object or activity) and explain it in two minutes.

Research Index • Teacher-to-Teacher Index • Submission Info • Contact Us • Subscription Info

Page 22 The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching © Summer 2009

The frequency of questions, as well as the consistent two hours a week; 4 = more than two hours a week.
level of comprehensible input throughout the
class period by the teacher are characteristic of a Responses of TPRS and traditional students were
TPRS class, as described in Fluency through TPR nearly identical (TPRS = 3.67, sd = .72; traditional =
Storytelling (Ray and Seely, 2008). 3.52, sd = .68) and not significantly different (t = .74,
df = 69, p = .46, two-tail).

Language Proficiency This result eliminates homework time as a potential

confound.
The two TPRS groups performed nearly identically
on both the final and oral tests, so their scores were Discussion
combined for statistical analysis. Table one presents
sample sizes and table two presents the results. The results show that the TPRS students outperformed
the traditional students on both the final and oral
Table one: Sample Size examinations.

Final test Oral test There were no obvious reasons for the superiority of
 
the TPRS group other than the treatment. Although
Traditional 23 23
few students in either class had any exposure to
TPRS 49 50 Spanish outside of class, a larger percentage were
Total 72 73 enrolled in the traditional class, which suggests that
the TPRS superiority was actually larger than what
was reported here.
Table two: Result
There was no reason to hypothesize any difference
  Final Test Oral test in attitude or motivation between the groups. Such
difference might have been present, however.
Traditional 58.2 (7.9) 1.26 (.54)
The sample size was modest, but the results were
TPRS 63.9 (4.03) 1.84 (.55) significantly different. Nevertheless, additional
t 4.06 4.21 studies of this kind are called for to confirm the
df 70 71 reliability of these results.
p (2 tails) 0.0001 0.00007
The finding that TPRS students outperformed
effect size 1.04 1.08 traditional students is consistent with previous reports
of the superiority of other comprehensible-input based
methods (Krashen, 1982, 2003). Whether TPRS, with
As presented in table two, the TPRS students its additional emphasis on stories, is superior to other
outperformed the comparison students, scoring about comprehensible input methods remains to be seen,
one standard deviation higher (see effect size in table but this study shows that TPRS has passed a very
two). important empirical test of its effectiveness.

Homework

Students estimated how much homework they did for

Spanish class choosing one of the following: 1 = less
than one hour per week; 2 = one to one and a half
hours per week; 3 = more than one and half hours to
Research Index • Teacher-to-Teacher Index • Submission Info • Contact Us • Subscription Info

Page 23 The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching © Summer 2009

 References:

Asher, J. (2000). Learning Another Language Through

Actions. Sky Oaks, CA: Sky Oaks Productions. Sixth
Edition.

Brigham Young University (1997) Interpreting

Your Statistical Analysis. Provo, UT: BYU Testing
Services.
https://apps.byuh.edu/apps/pirat/Testing_Center/docs/
UnderstandStat.pdf

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second

Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language

Acquisition and Use: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. 1983. The Natural

Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom.
New York: Prentice-Hall.

Ray, B. and Seely, C. (2008). Fluency through TPR

storytelling, Berkeley: Command Performance
Language Institute.

Trelease, J. 2006. The Read-Aloud Handbook. New

York: Penguin. Sixth Edition.

Research Index • Teacher-to-Teacher Index • Submission Info • Contact Us • Subscription Info

Page 24 The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching © Summer 2009