Total Physical Response

Total Physical Response (TPR) was developed by James Asher, a professor of psychology at San Jose State University, in 1977. It is a language teaching method built around the coordination of speech and action; it attempts to teach language through physical (motor) activity. According to Asher, motor activity is a right-brain function that should precede left-brain language processing.
Principles of child language acquisition were important. Asher (1977) noted that children, in learning their first language, appear to do a lot of listening before they speak, and that their listening accompanied by physical responses (reaching, grabbing, moving, looking, and so forth). TPR also reflects a grammar-based view of language. Asher states that “most of the grammatical structure of the target language and hundreds of vocabulary items can be learned from the skillful use of the imperative by the instructor” (1977: 4).

TPR can be linked to the “trace theory” of memory psychology (e.g., Katona 1940), which holds that the more often or the more intensively a memory connection is traced, the stronger the memory association will be and the more likely it will be recalled. Retracing can be done verbally (e.g., by rote repetition). We can increase the possibility of successful recall, if combined tracing activity, such as verbal rehearsal accompanied by motor activity.

             The principles of TPR (Lersen-Freeman, 2000):

1. Learning a language must be fun and stress free, this lows anxiety.
2. The understanding of the language comes first than speaking.
3. Initially, the teacher is the director of all student behavior, but at some point when the students are ready to speak they can change roles.
4. At first, the students’ response is nonverbal.
5. The vocabulary and grammatical structures are emphasized over other language areas.
6. The spoken language is emphasized over written language. 
7. The TPR is usually introduced in the student’s native language. After that rarely would the native language be used. Meaning is clear through the body movements.

The general objectives of TPR are to teach oral proficiency at beginning level. Comprehension is a means to an end, and the ultimate aim is to teach basic speaking skills. A TPR course aims to produce learners who are capable of an uninhibited communication that is intelligible to a native speaker. Specific instructional objectives are not elaborated, for these will depend on the particular needs of the learner. Whatever goals are set, however, must be attainable through the use of action-based drills in the imperative form.

The type of syllabus that Asher uses can be inferred from an analysis of the exercise types employed in TPR classes. This analysis reveals the use of a sentence-based syllabus, with grammatical and lexical criteria being primary in selecting teaching items.

Imperative drills are the major classroom activity in TPR. They are typically used to elicit physical actions and activity on the part of the learners. Other class activities include role plays and slide presentations.

Learners in TPR have the primary roles of listener and performer. They listen attentively and respond physically to commands given by the teacher. The teacher plays an active and direct role in TPR. It is the teacher who decides what to teach, who models and presents the new materials, and who selects supporting materials for classroom use.

Material and realia play an increasing role, however, in later learning stages. For absolute beginners, lessons may not require the use of materials, since the teacher’s voice, actions, and gestures may be a sufficient basis for classroom activities. Later, the teacher may use common classroom objects, such as books, pens, cups, furniture. As the course develops, the teacher will need to make or collect supporting materials to support teaching points. These may include pictures, realia, slides, and word charts. Asher has developed TPR student kits that focus on specific situations, such as the home, the supermarket. Students may use the kits to construct scenes (e.g., “Put the stove in the kitchen”).

In conclusion, TPR enjoyed some popularity in the 1970s and 1980s because its support by those who emphasize the role of comprehension in second language acquisition. Krashen (1981), for example, regards provision of comprehensible input and reduction of stress as keys to successful language acquisition, and he sees performing physical actions in the target language as a means of making input comprehensible and minimizing stress. Asher stressed that TPR should be used in association with other methods and techniques. Indeed, practitioners of TPR typically follow this recommendation, suggesting that for many teachers TPR represents a useful set of techniques and is compatible with other approaches to teaching. TPR practices therefore may be effective for reasons other than those proposed by Asher and do not necessarily demand commitment to the learning theories used to justify them.

Bibliography and further reading

Asher, J. 1977. Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete Teacher’s Guide Book. Los Gatos, Califa Sky Oaks Productions. (2^nd ed. 1982.)

Lersen-Freeman. 2000. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katona, G. 1940. Organizing and Memorizing: Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching. New York: Columbia University Press.

Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plains, New York: Longman.

Richard, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001. Approaches and Method in Language Teaching. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.