Taken from a post to a listserv. An astute laying out of pros and cons:
My serious issues with TPRS as a complete methodology can be addressed much more rationally here We agree that:
1. Comprehensible input is essential. Students need to hear and read as much target language as possible. As I read recent research (combined with 29 years as a teacher and more than that as a language learner) I disagree that comprehensible input is sufficient for acquisition.
2. Personalization is an important element in all learning and in language learning in particular. Good teacher have always personalized the content of instruction by making connections to previous learning and to the students’ lives.
3. I think we agree that proficiency testing is the only legitimate measure of success and the only legitimate way to make comparisons between similar groups of students.
4. We agree that good teaching is focused on the students: meeting them where they are and taking them to the next level.
Here are just a few of my disagreements:
1. I disagree that input needs to be 100% comprehensible. Krashen himself talked about i + 1; Vygotzky talked about a ZPD. Students can learn to get the gist of authentic samples of speech given proper scaffolding and skills to be able to deal with ambiguity. Students can be shown the metacognitive skills of using context to infer meaning of new words.
2. I disagree that translation of text can be called reading as leaders such as Blaine Ray, Karen Rowan and Jason Fritze advocate.
3. I disagree that learning a second language is the same as learning a first language. Skillful application of learning theory can enhance, facilitate and accelerate acquisition.
4. I disagree that homework is bad.
5. I disagree with the use of the term “barometer” and “star”
6. I disagree that stories need to be bizarre and exaggerated to be engaging.
7. I disagree that direct instruction of key grammar points is a waste of time as these elements are helpful for completing communicative tasks. I disagree that by the way “pop up” instruction is an effective methodology to be able to say that grammar is addressed.
8. I disagree with limiting the quantity of vocabulary given to students.
9. I disagree that “bad TPRS is better than no TPRS.” I wouldn’t like to inherit a group of students exposed to “bad” anything. I remember one teacher reporting that she taught a whole year of TPRS and never used the first person with her students. I’m not kidding.
10. I disagree that output is not necessary for language learning.
11. I disagree with the use of the word “fluency” to describe the outcome of TPRS. The word has no meaning to professional language teachers. Our profession speaks of “proficiency” in very well defined stages.
12. I disagree with the use of the term “four percenters” as used in TPRS circles to refer to the number of students who actually learn anything in non-TPRS classrooms.
13. I disagree with the use of the term “pre-TPRS” to refer to other teachers who don’t adopt TPRS.
14. I disagree with the nearly exclusive use of circling as an engaging way of providing the necessary repetitions for students to acquire vocabulary.
15. I disagree with the choice of vocabulary, particularly animals, body parts, and some the action verbs used in some commercially available TPRS materials. I don’t think one has to be crude to be engaging to students.
16. I agree with those who express concern that TPRS is too “teacher-centered.”
17. Finally, I have problems personally with teachers whose ultimate goal is to “wing it” every day with TPRS. Converts to TPRS often rave about how easy it is because they jot down a few words and “wing it,” how they’re thrilled not to have homework papers to correct and deal with, etc. There are already enough people who think that any schlep off the street can come in and teach. I find it offensive when teachers start to believe it too and help perpetuate this myth. Good teachers, like good actors, make good teaching look effortless, spontaneous and natural. In my experience, it is anything but effortless. Really good teachers know that when nothing is left to chance, that good planning allows for maximum spontaneity, flexibility and creativity in a lesson. Be clear that I’m not saying that all or even many TPRS teachers ascribe to this philosophy, but I see it expressed frequently enough on moretprs where it goes unchallenged by others on the list. This certainly does not serve to lend legitimacy to TPRS among practitioners.
As you can see, I have studied this methodology, that I really wanted to like. I believe that stories can be compelling “hooks” for student interest and engagement. It’s the implementation that I take issue with and the unwillingness of the TPRS community to rationally address legitimate criticism. The TPRS community is very good and patient in dealing with mechanical “how to do it” questions. However, when things don’t work for teachers, when students (particularly bright students) are not responding to the stories, or when contradictory research or findings are raised, they are dismissed.