Sorry for continuing the offtopic discussion, but I wanted to clear this up.
[quote=“bob”]I understand the TPR and TPRS people put forward a method of teaching that allows for a good deal of language aquisition free of analysis and my own, probably somewhat misguided, experiments with their ideas leads me to believe it’s a great approach. With older and/or more analytically inclined people though I have found that a strong foundation in basic grammar followed by enormous amounts of comprehensible input and opportunities for self expression is really the best combination.[/quote]When you tried TPRS what structures were you using? How long did you try it for? Were you doing the grammar “pop-ups”?
In what way do you think that TPRS is lacking in comprehensible input and grammar? That’s basically what TPRS is!
It’s true that the “mainstream” of TPRS teachers tend to leave the formal, systematic study of grammar books until students already have a firm experiential grounding in basic grammatical structures (and along the way have also had a great many opportunities to reflect on what particular grammatical features mean in context). If students want to start more formal, systematic study of grammar sooner that’s fair enough and doing so can be an opportunity for more comprehensible input.
Also, stories about pink plastic elephants may not be your adult students’ cup of tea! It may be better to spend time on factual articles and discussions, provided that you’re giving students enough comprehensible, interesting repetitions of key grammatical structures.
Overall, a good understanding of what TPRS is and the principles behind it can be hugely beneficial for teaching any level, any age.
Thanks for responding Joesax. I know it must be frustrating for you talking to someone as all over the place as I am.
Here’s what I have been doing (not sure if it could rightfully be called TPRS).
Getting through the awkward “I studied English for years but can’t speak it” phase with a simple translation game. Basically I get a bunch of useful phrases - especially ones I want them to know if they study with me - and ask them to translate from Chinese to English, if it’s really easy, and from English to Chinese, if I think it is more difficult for them. If they can’t get the Chinese to English part I give them clues, usually grammar info in Chinese. This process gives me a chance to see how familiar they are with basic linguistic concepts. They tape record this class and listen (yes in actuality they do listen to these tapes) to it a couple of times at home.
Introduce them to the five basic structures with particular focus on the first two. I teach these in the four basic tenses and also teach them how to make questions in each. Excercise the bejeezus out of this with real questions about things they can either see happening or not happening.
Tape record this.
Finally get to the TPRS (I know this is supposed to be the other way around) which involves not only providing enough context that they can guess the meaning of words but asking them to demonstrate their understanding using body language translation or by drawing pictures. They hear the same story numerous times and more and more are involved in writing the stories that they act out. We write a line each and when they make mistakes I give them hints as to how they might correct their own sentences rather than correcting them myself. I ask questions for extra information about the story which they need to insert either into existing sentences or using new sentences. Finaly I print the corrected story out and they take turns reading aloud with the aim of near perfectly casual pronunciation, ie. linked and with reduced syllables. This is tape recorded and listened to at home as well.
[quote=“bob”]Thanks for responding Joesax. I know it must be frustrating for you talking to someone as all over the place as I am.[/quote]I am a details man and perhaps you are more of a big picture man.
It sounds as if you are doing something that is similar to TPRS in some ways.
I am a little old-fashioned in that I believe if you want to get a good idea of somebody’s method, whether it be teaching, martial arts, cookery or whatever, you need to apply yourself to learning about it as it is practised by its originators. Go to classes/workshops if at all possible, buy books and DVDs and study them again and again. When you start to practice the method, “go by the book”. Get as much experience as possible. When you have a really good grounding in that method, then and only then you might want to consider making changes or additions, or dropping most of the method and simply using the experience you have gained in your own practice.
I started writing “Info on TPRS seems a little hard to come by but if I could, for example, get a DVD of a professional using TPRS I would study the heck out of it” but then realized that while I might study it, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that it would even be physically possible for me to use any method that I hadn’t basically put together myself using theory based on my own experience and the insight of good people like yourself. (Wow that was a long sentence!) It just ain’t the way I was put together I guess. Anyway nobody I teach using these techniques complains that their English isn’t improving. They complain that I make them work too hard and think too much but not that their English isn’t improving. Which of course isn’t to say that I won’t do things differently in the future. In fact I imagine my teaching will be more and more in line with TPRS theory. In other words less grammar explanation at the outset, simpler structures taught and more communicative, acted out practice with each one.
On train from Taitung to Taipei I recently met a German diving tourist who asked me “what do you do here?” Actually, I’m on vacation, but I used to teach ESL. I told him about my former job, and he replied “well, it seems that there are a lot of you here…English teachers…well, can I just say that…you guys obviously don’t to a very good job at what you do…” And I was like “What? What do you mean?” And he explained that he was on some God-send 1.5-year government payout for unemployment, had travelled EXTENSIVELY and nowhere, nowhere, NOWHERE had he felt so humiliated by his English skillls as he did here in Taiwan. From what he could gather, English could only possibly be of marginal interest to Taiwanese, as no one had ever heard of it before. How many English teachers do we have in Taiwan? Good JoB!
Maybe. But he seemed genuinely disgruntled. Said his trips to Green Island and Orchid Island -and all arrangments from Taidong- were damn near impossible due to the locals’ inability to speak English. Said he did not encounter this in Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, or Malaysia…but suddenly, he arrived in Taiwan and he hit a brick wall. That’s what he said, at least.
Taiwan isn’t the tourist destination that those places are. If it was an army of local touts would learn passable English soon enough. Anyway, I have no real problem with him making a comment regarding the English ability of those in the tourist industry here. Extrapolating from that to the quality of English teachers though is just stupid.
Herr Superior probably says that to every English speaking westerner he meets. Poor guy. If his English is so great, why doesn’t anyone in Taiwan understand him, yet in Thailand they do? Was he in his fifties, have a big gut, and a Sony videocam slung over his shoulder?