Kelly Z. Varguez (M. Ed. Doane College, 2007) is a Spanish language instructor and curriculum designer for the Center for Transcultural Learning at the College of Saint Mary in Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Traditional and TPRS Instruction in the Beginning High School Spanish Classroom
Kelly Z. Varguez
Center for Transcultural Learning
College of Saint Mary
Omaha, NE USA
Abstract
Background In this study, traditional instruction is described as the numerous techniques instructors use to teach about a target language while TPRS (Teaching Proficiency through
Reading and Storytelling) is defined as an approach instructors use to teach with a target language. This study compares the effects of traditional and TPRS instruction on the reading and listening comprehension levels of beginning Spanish students at the secondary level. Results Statistical comparison of the standardized tests of control and experimental groups indicates that TPRS students make greater gains in reading and listening comprehension than their traditionally taught counterparts. Though high variance in the scores of students in the experimental schools could justify the need for repeat studies with larger participant pools, the data reveal the merit of TPRS instruction.
Introduction
As the demand increases for multilingual individuals in the workplace, debate amongst language teachers rages about the best ways to produce fluency in second language learners. Many schools of thought exist in this area; two are of particular interest in this paper. The first adheres to the idea that first and second language learning are fundamentally different. It emphasizes accurate language production through a concept explanation-concept practice model. The second views first and second language learning as similar processes and seeks to imitate the first language acquisition experience within the confines of the typical classroom.
Dr. Stephen Krashen’s (1981) distinction between language learning, a cognitive exercise, and language acquisition, a subconscious process, illustrates the central difference between the two viewpoints examined in this study. Instructors who approach second language learning as a cognitive exercise tend to apply a variety of treatments in their classrooms. In general, philosophies of this nature treat language as an object, or an “entity to be scrutinized, analyzed, and broken down into its smallest components”
(Tedick & Walker, 1994, p. 305) in order to then be built back into accurate communication. Adherence to this philosophy often manifests itself in lessons that teach not with the language but about it (Tedick &
Walker, 1994, p. 306). This emphasis on the mental process of learning language in a series of steps and formulas plays a historical role in language instruction in the United States. The researcher will therefore refer to it as the traditional approach in this study.
While traditional teachers seek to break languages down into accessible chunks, their acquisition oriented counterparts aim to expose students to as much understandable language as possible. The basis of this approach is formed by the work of researchers including Dr. James Asher (1969), who, in the process of pioneering the Total Physical Response approach, stressed the importance of exposure to contextualized examples of the target language, especially through listening. Krashen (1981) took this assertion further by defining comprehensible input, or large doses of understandable language, as the essential element in both first and second language acquisition. In the years since, the comprehensible input theory has gained recognition worldwide. Likewise, it has occasioned the development of numerous techniques for immersing students in understandable language. Of particular interest in this study is the Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling technique, or TPRS. TPRS was
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

developed by instructor Blaine Ray as a way to extend the vocabulary acquisition and excitement for learning he observed in students taught with Total Physical Response (Ray & Seely, 2002). His efforts have provided many instructors with a tangible way to apply comprehensible input theory. In the typical
TPRS classroom, instructors identify high-frequency vocabulary and grammatical structures and teach them through class conversation, storytelling and reading practice. Grammar explanations are typically very short and content is narrowed to the most useful phrases and structures for real communication. A low-anxiety environment is maintained by keeping the target language understandable.
For individual instructors, adherence to these schools of thought may occur on a continuum, leading to a tendency to employ a variety of teaching techniques. For those instructors wishing to reach the highest number of learners in the most effective way, the issue becomes which approach encourages the most growth among language learners. The central question explored in this study is how the level of listening and reading comprehension in beginning Spanish high school students taught in a traditional environment compares to that of beginning Spanish high school students taught in a TPRS environment.
The researcher hypothesizes that students taught in a TPRS environment will display greater gains in reading and listening comprehension.
Procedure
For this study, participating teachers administered the University of the State of New York’s standardized
Second Language Proficiency Examination in Spanish from June of 2006 to test the reading and listening comprehension skills of beginning Spanish students at the end of their first year of study. The teachers invited to participate were chosen on the basis of three factors: reputable recommendation, survey score, and personal description of typical classroom activities. The survey score stemmed from teacher answers to survey questions (Appendix A) designed to quantify philosophy of foreign language instruction. Teachers earning scores of 31 or above were considered rooted in a traditional approach to instruction while those earning scores of 30 or below were considered TPRS teachers. Logically, teachers who earned scores closer to the cutoff number were considered more likely to combine aspects of both schools of thought in classroom instruction. To avoid misclassification based on factors like misinterpretation of survey questions, teachers’ personal description of classroom activities were taken into account as possible support for or contradiction of survey scores.
Participating teachers were labeled traditional upon analysis of surveys (mean score 47.5) and personal classroom description. According to the aforementioned sources, this study’s traditional teachers tended to elicit practice of reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills in their classrooms, pointing to the logical observation that consistent practice of a particular skill is necessary to obtain proficiency.
Production of the target language in written and spoken form was elicited at an early point in the semester and continued throughout year. Grammar description and drills played a central role in instruction, as did the study of vocabulary lists and the practice of writing and speaking. Often, correct language production was considered evidence of learned language rules while incorrect language production was interpreted as a need to re-teach specific grammatical points. Students were expected to think about the workings of target language and apply their understanding of those workings to communication.
Participating teachers were labeled TPRS instructors when survey analysis (mean score 23.5) and personal classroom description revealed a high level of implementation of TPRS-based instruction. This study’s TPRS teachers tended to spend the bulk of class time on language comprehension activities including storytelling, informal class conversations, and reading practice, citing target language comprehension as an important precursor to target language production. Grammar description occurred in short segments built around examples evident within the context of reading samples. Grammar drills were seldom used and vocabulary lists were streamlined into lists of three to four high-frequency phrases to be taught during each lesson. Students repeatedly heard and read those phrases in context
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

during conversation and story activities. English was used to establish meaning of the target phrases and to clarify when conversations, stories, and reading samples included language students did not understand. Accurate language production was valued, but de-emphasized; inaccurate production was seen as evidence for the need for more input.
Once the traditional (control) and TPRS (experimental) classrooms were clearly defined, the bulk of the study began. Because both control and experimental group students were enrolled in beginning Spanish, a pretest was not administered. The New York Proficiency exam administered to each group in April of
2007 included a list of questions (Appendix B) to eliminate native speakers, heritage speakers, and other false beginners from the sample. The test consisted of three listening exercises and three reading exercises, each designed to measure comprehension skills. One reading section (Appendix C) was adapted from a more advanced test, the New York Regency exam, in order to examine student comprehension of an entire reading passage versus comprehension of isolated words, phrases, and sentences.
Results
By and large, the researcher found significant statistical difference between the level of listening and reading comprehension among students in the control and experimental groups at the end of their first year of Spanish study. Overall, the mean score of control group students (N=48) on the 35-question standardized test was 23.45, while that of their experimental group counterparts (N=35) was 28.40
(t=3.96, p<.0001). Specifically, on a 20-question listening comprehension test, the mean score for the control group was 14.91 while that of the experimental group was 17.37 (t= 3.97, p< .0001). On the 15question reading comprehension test, the control group’s mean score was 8.54 while the experimental group’s was 11.02 (t= 3.34, p< .0001). Regarding the 5-question examination of reading comprehension of passages of text, control group students scored a mean of 1.56 while experimental group students scored a mean of 3.14 (t= 5.37, p< .0001).
Mean Scores on Comprehension Tests
(Variance in parenthesis)
Overall
Listening
Test Control Group
23.45
14.91
(21.19)
(7.73)
Experimental Group
28.40
17.37
(38.95)
(7.71)
Reading 8.54 (6.04) 11.02 (14.91)
Reading of Longer Passage 1.56 (1.23) 3.14 (2.12)
Warranting explanation are two disparities that existed among the participating schools. Of the four participating schools, the Spanish I classes taught in the two control schools and one of the experimental schools (experimental school B) were taught by teachers with well over five years of experience.
Additionally, the graduation rates at these three schools ranged from 97 to 100% in 2006/2007. In contrast, the Spanish I students in experimental school A were taught by a student teacher for a significant portion of the year in a school with a 79% graduation rate in 2006/2007. The smaller gains typically made by students of teachers with less than five years of experience (Goe & Stickler, 2008, p. 3) combined with the broader educational challenges in experimental school A as evidenced by the lower graduation rate may explain the high levels of variance shown in the experimental group scores. They also necessitate a separate comparison of the control school data to that of each experimental school.
Comparisons of the control group (N=48) to experimental group A (N=13) rendered statistically insignificant results. When considering the entire test, the control group scored a mean of 23.45 while experimental group A scored a mean of 22.30 (t= -0.62 p<0.27). On the listening comprehension portion, the control group mean score of 14.91 compares to the experimental group A mean score of 14.84 (t=
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

-0.76, p< .470); for reading comprehension, the control group mean score of 8.54 compares to the experimental B group score of 7.46 (t= -0.92, p<.185); for longer text reading comprehension, the control group mean score of 1.56 compares to the experimental group score of 2.15 (t= 1.35, p< .097). These numbers suggest a slightly lower level of performance for experimental school A, a difference that is rendered statistically insignificant upon statistical analysis.
Mean Scores on Comprehension Tests of Control Schools and School with Student Teacher
(Variance in parenthesis)
Test
Overall
Listening
Reading
Reading of Longer Passage
Control Group
23.45
14.91
8.54
1.56
(21.19)
(7.73)
(6.04)
(1.23)
Experimental Group A
22.30
14.84
7.46
2.15
(38.23)
(9.14)
(16.10)
(2.14)
Comparisons of the control group (N=48) to experimental group B (N=22) revealed statistically significant results. The numbers break down as a listening comprehension mean score of 14.91 for the control group and 18.86 for experimental group B (t=8.70, p<.0001); a reading comprehension mean score of 8.54 for the control group and 13.13 for experimental group B (t= 9.47, p<.0001); and a reading comprehension in a larger context mean score of 1.56 for the control group and 3.72 for experimental group B (t=7.52, p<.0001). Experimental school B displayed marked gains and consistently outperformed the control schools on standardized comprehension tests.
Mean Scores on Comprehension Tests of Control Schools and School without Student Teacher
(Variance in parenthesis)
Test
Overall
Listening
Reading
Reading of Longer Passage
Control Group
23.45
14.91
8.54
1.56
(21.19)
(7.73)
(6.04)
(1.23)
Experimental Group B
32.00
18.86
13.13
3.72
(4.66)
(0.98)
(2.40)
(1.25)
Conclusions
The results of the study confirm the researcher’s hypothesis: beginning Spanish students taught in a
TPRS environment make greater gains in reading and listening comprehension than those taught in traditional language classrooms. Therefore, the researcher concludes that rooting beginning level language instruction in TPRS techniques rather than traditional techniques is more likely to increase student comprehension of the target language.
This, like any study, is not flawless. One weakness of the study is the limited number of participating schools. The high variance of the scores of the students in the experimental schools was a weakening factor. More informative would have been the study of a larger sample of participants, containing a like number of control and experimental schools with similar variations in teacher experience, socioeconomic make-up, graduation rates and the like. Such a sample would have allowed the researcher to view the impact of TPRS not only on the sample as a whole, but also on demographically similar populations.
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

Nevertheless, this study does show TPRS-based instruction to be a valuable tool for teachers seeking to build strong comprehension skills in their beginning level language learners. Students educated with
TPRS show a higher proficiency for listening and reading, especially entire passages of text. This increased proficiency in comprehension of the target language holds promise for increased oral and written proficiency as well, due to the correlations reported between listening and speaking abilities
(Asher, 1969, p. 4) and reading and literacy development (Krashen, 2004). In other words, better readers and listeners of a target language become more able speakers and writers, a fact that makes TPRS based instruction even more compelling.
Today’s language students often seek the ability to communicate in the language they study. TPRS is a valuable and legitimate vehicle for providing students with that ability. The comprehensible input theory that forms the basis of the TPRS technique is widely accepted and well researched. It simply stands to reason that an approach that applies the principles of comprehensible input so well proves an excellent means of creating communicative ability in our students.
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

References
Asher, J. J. (1969).The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern
Language Journal . 53 , 3-17.
Goe, L., & Stickler, L.M. (2008). TQ Research and Policy Brief. National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality , Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.tqsource.org/publications/March2008Brief.pdf
.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning . Elmsford, New
York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (2004). Free voluntary reading: New research, applications, and controversies.
Retrieved January 5, 2009, from Stephen D. Krashen Web site: http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/singapore/index.html
Ray, B., & Seely, C. (2002). Fluency through TPR storytelling: Achieving real language acquisition in school . Third edition. Berkley: Command Performance Language Institute.
Tedick, D. J., & Walker, C. L. (1994). Second language teacher education: The problems that plague us. The Modern Language Journal. 78, 300-312.
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

Appendix A
Read the following statements. Then, indicate your level of agreement with each one by using the scale below. To indicate your choice, please type an X in the parenthesis that correspond to your chosen number:
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 =Strongly Agree
1. Beginning Spanish students should participate in a wide variety of speaking, reading, listening, and writing activities every week.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
2. Beginning Spanish students should be expected to speak and write with grammatical accuracy.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
3. Beginning Spanish students benefit from learning grammar in a logical order, beginning with easier concepts and moving on to harder ones.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
4. Beginning Spanish students need to practice speaking in Spanish early in their instruction.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
5. Beginning Spanish students benefit from ample access to grammar exercises.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
6. Beginning Spanish students benefit from spending class time practicing speaking skills.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
7. Beginning Spanish students benefit from spending class time practicing writing skills.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
8. A textbook is an important component of introductory level curriculum.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
9. Beginning Spanish students benefit from learning numerous vocabulary terms each week.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
10. When students write poorly, grammatical concepts should be re-taught.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
11. Beginning Spanish students need detailed information about the grammatical concepts they study.
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 ( )4
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

Read the following descriptions of in-class activities. Then, indicate how many times per week your students participate in each one by typing an X in the parenthesis that correspond to your choice.
12. Do vocabulary drills.
( )Less than 1 ( )3-4 ( )5 or more ( )1-2
13. Translate text from Spanish to English.
( )Less than 1 ( )1-2
14. Do grammar drills.
( )Less than 1 ( )1-2
15. Give presentations to peers in Spanish.
( )Less than 1 ( )1-2
16. Listen to stories told in Spanish.
( )Less than 1
( )3-4
( )3-4
( )3-4
( )5 or more
( )5 or more
( )5 or more
( )1-2
17. Take quizzes over grammatical concepts.
( )Less than 1 ( )1-2
18. Participate in class discussions in Spanish.
( )Less than 1 ( )1-2
( )3-4
( )3-4
( )3-4
( )5 or more
( )5 or more
( )5 or more
19. Read texts written in Spanish.
( )Less than 1 ( )1-2 ( )3-4 ( )5 or more
Please provide the following demographic information by typing in your answer.
20. How many years have you been teaching?
21. How many students do you teach total this semester?
22. Describe your school’s schedule – how long are your class periods? Do you meet with every student every day?
23. What textbook series do you use?
24. How many hours of homework do you assign per week?
25. Have you completed any graduate education? If so, how much?
26. Briefly describe a typical week in your classroom. For example – what are your typical learning objectives? How do activities progress from day to day? What can students expect to spend time doing?
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

Appendix B
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1.
What grade are you in? a.
7 th or 8 th b.
9 th c.
10 th d.
11 th e.
12 th
2.
What is your gender? a.
Male b.
Female
3.
Have you taken this same Spanish class in the past? a.
Yes b.
No
4.
How many years have you studied Spanish NOT counting this year? a.
None b.
Less than one (a few months) c.
1-2 d.
3-4 e.
5+
5.
Do you speak a language other than English at home? a.
Yes b.
No
6.
Do you communicate in Spanish on a regular basis with your parents, grandparents, or guardians? a.
Yes b.
No
7.
What other world language do you study? a.
None b.
French c.
German d.
Latin e.
Other
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.

Appendix C
Adapted from the University of the State of New York’s Regents High School Comprehensive
Examination in Spanish from June 2006. Used with permission.
El grupo Maná fue de gira con su nuevo álbum “Revolución de amor”
Maná era una de las bandas de rock latino más populares de México en los años noventa y todavía es muy popular. Sin perder los elementos especiales de la música rock, con su música la banda se expresa acerca de la ecología, la pobreza, y la justicia.
Maná estrenó su álbum más reciente “Revolución de amor” en el año 2004. Su álbum anterior,
“Sueños líquidos” salió en el año 1997. Su público esperó el álbum por mucho tiempo. Fher el cantante principal del grupo expresó, “Nosotros no participamos en el concepto de lanzar discos cada año solamente para hacer dinero. Para nosotros, es más importante dedicarle el tiempo necesario a cada uno de los discos que creamos.” Según Fher, él y sus compañeros son “anti estrellas de rock.” Ellos dan más importancia a la música que al estilo de vida.
Para el disco “Revolución de amor” el grupo grabó baladas, canciones con ritmas salsera, y rock and roll puro. También, trabajó con dos grandes estrellas de la música latina para hacer el álbum: Carlos
Santana y el legendario Rubén Blades. Hicieron una gira con ellos y después descansaron por un año para crear más canciones poéticas y expresivas. Sin duda, “Revolución de amor” fue un éxito porque es una vigorosa declaración melódica, rítmica, emocional y política, sobre una música que tiene su foro en las fiestas de barrio y las calles.
38.
Según el artículo, ¿qué les importa más a los miembros del grupo Maná? a.
producir muchos álbumes b.
vivir la vida loca de una estrella c.
ganar dinero d.
expresar sus ideas con la música
39.
¿Por qué no producen discos cada año? a.
porque tienen muchas obligaciones familiares b.
porque es más importante hacer buena música c.
porque su contrato no lo permite d.
porque tienen muchos conciertos
40.
¿Por qué es diferente el nuevo álbum de Maná? a.
porque tiene canciones en muchos idiomas b.
porque participaron dos artistas famosos c.
porque contiene canciones y poemas d.
porque habla de la historia de México
41.
¿Qué hizo el grupo después de la gira? a.
Descansó por doce meses. b.
Grabó un nuevo disco. c.
Hizo un viaje a España. d.
Escribió un libro de poemas.
42.
¿Por qué tiene éxito este grupo musical? a.
Usan ropa exótica. b.
Utilizan las ideas de su público. c.
Tocan diferentes estilos de música. d.
Solamente tocan música romántica.
Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved.