TPR (and TPRS) is built on the theory and research of many language acquisition specialists and continues to develop according to the findings of classroom experimentation and new brain research.

Three key players in the development of this method are worth exploring in more depth.

The following summaries by Elizabeth Skelton, in her book

Putting It Together: TPRS as a Sheltering Strategy for ESL provide a more in-depth understanding of the theories of James Asher, Stephen Krashen, and Blaine Ray.

Click here for a summary on the original work on TPR by Dr. James Asher.

Stephen Krashen´s five interrelated hypothesis on second language acquisition have significantly impacted the TPRS language teaching method (Krashen, 1981).

According to Krashen´s theory, language acquisition is a subconscious and intuitive process much like how children seem to pick up their first language. When students are focused on understanding the meaning of a message, rather than the form of the message, they are naturally acquiring language. Students in a TPRS class acquire language naturally because they focus on the meaning of a the content and actively participate in creating stories. In contrast, focusing on form, figuring out rules, and memorizing word lists and verb conjugations are characteristic of language learning. According to Krashen, language learning

is more difficult and rarely leads to oral fluency. Krashen is not opposed to teachers highlighting essential rules or pointing out subtle language forms when students have achieved a certain level of competence in the target language, but he cautions against following a strict grammar syllabus, which focuses instruction on one rule after another. If students are focused on form, he believes they will develop a strong monitor, which impedes fluency.

The monitor, the second part of Krashen´s five-pronged theory, states that language learners will consciously examine their own speech, if they have not truly acquired the language, but rather learned it through rules and lists.

While conscious review is important for writing accurately, making correct accent marks, and placing punctuation according to standards, the monitor can seriously limit fluent speaking. Students who are focused on form often speak haltingly, checking every word and phrase for accuracy before proceeding. Because they have learned the rules for the language, they check their own speech against the rules before producing an answer or participating in a dialog.

Try this experiment on yourself.

Try to speak fluently about what you did last night without using any words with the letter n. For example, you may not say “went”, “on”, or “next.” Find a new word to replace the letter n. Speak out loud and see how fluent you are. Although this is an artificial rule in English, when you focused on the n rule, your fluency probably declined quickly. You probably had to rephrase what you wanted to say and avoid some phrases all together. This simulation may help you understand the monitor hypothesis.

Students who have acquired language forms will naturally use this language in appropriate situations and not have to monitor their speech. For example, while I was learning Spanish in an intensive, grammar-based program, I struggled with the subjunctive and imperative modes.

I avoided using the subjunctive at all costs! I tried to speak around the subjunctive whenever possible, just like finding a word without an n! However, when my host mother regularly sent me off to school with “¡Que tengas un buen día!” or responded to my stories of daily events with “¡No me digas!”, I quickly acquired these expressions. I didn´t have to monitor my speech when using these imperative expressions later. I didn´t have to refer to the verb forms list stored in my brain. When saying these forms, which I had naturally acquired, I sounded fluent! Most English Language Learners find that participating in a TPRS class enables them to speak more fluently in a variety of situations, because they no longer monitor their speech so closely.

The third part of Krashen´s theory is the natural order of acquisition,

which suggests that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a “natural order.” Language learners will first acquire that which has the most meaning and structures to which they have been repeatedly and consistently exposed. The last structures acquired are those that cause the least confusion if done wrong.

For example, many non-native English speakers struggle with adding the third-person singular s on verbs. For example, they say sentences like, “My brother work in a factory and make a lot of money.”

Although this grammatical structure is usually introduced in the very beginning of a grammar-based language course, many students do not acquire it until much later, because dropping the third person singular s causes no confusion for native speakers. These same students can often fill in the blanks of a grammar test with the correct forms of the verbs and add the s whenever appropriate on such tests. They can do this because they have time to monitor their language, access the rule, and apply it appropriately. When they begin speaking fluently, however, and focus on meaning, rather than form, many speakers will continue to drop the s.

Another illustration of the natural order hypothesis is found with native English speakers. A large number of native English speakers hear non-standard grammar everyday and their speech reflects this consistent, frequent exposure (e.g. I seen that movie. Me and him are going home. We had went there. If I was you….) Teachers attempt to teach standard grammar rules, but students have acquired the patterns with the most repetition. TPRS delays formal grammar instruction, but introduces correct grammatical structures from the beginning through meaningful contexts and natural conversation. Students in a TPRS class acquire

correct grammatical forms because they hold meaning and teachers consistently and repeatedly use these structures.

Providing comprehensible input is the fourth part of Krashen´s second language acquisition theory. Krashen believes that students must understand the message in the target language in order to acquire new vocabulary and structures. This hypothesis explains how many adult English Language Learners can live in the United States for years and not acquire English. If they have not understood the messages they have heard on the street, in the store, and at their work place, they will not make progress in English. If students in the K-12 school system do not receive comprehensible input, they will also fail to thrive despite hearing English all day long. An immersion environment or an inclusion classroom can only be effective if the students can understand the lessons. If they cannot follow the lesson or understand the language of instruction, immersion quickly becomes submersion for these students.

TPRS provides a powerful method for teachers to shelter their content instruction and make grade-level lessons in science, social studies, math and language arts more comprehensible.

The final part of Krashen´s language acquisition theory highlights the importance of our emotional state. Krashen claims that students who are anxious, nervous, or tired may develop a strong affective filter, which can severely limit language acquisition. English Language Learners come to school or to an adult ESL program with a host of issues that may build their affective filter. Feeling unwelcome, fearing deportation, sensing prejudice, dressing differently, and simply not understanding are just some of the reasons English Language Learners may build an affective filter. As language teachers, we must be aware of this phenomenon and strive to create a comfortable, welcoming, low-stress classroom environment, so that language acquisition will be possible. A colleague who recently experienced the affective filter phenomenon in a language class described it to me as “a cognitive shut-down.” She said, “One minute I could understand everything and then I felt pressured to perform and I couldn´t understand anything anymore!” The anxiety literally created a barrier or filter to further acquisition.

The TPRS method encourages teachers to use humor, personal stories, and group responses to lower the affective filter in the classroom.

Click here for a summary on the development of TPRS by Blaine Ray.

– from Elizabeth Skelton, Putting It Together