Total Physical Response

Total Physical Response (TPR) is a method developed by Dr. James J. Asher, a professor
emeritus of psychology at San José State University, to aid learning second languages.
The method relies on the assumption that when learning a second or additional language,
language is internalized through a process of codebreaking similar to first language
development and that the process allows for a long period of listening and developing
comprehension prior to production. Students respond to commands that require physical
movement. TPR is primarily intended for ESL/EAL teacher, although the method is used
in teaching other languages as well. The method became popular in the 1970's and
attracted the attention or allegiance of some teachers, but it has not received generalized
support from mainstream educators.[

Premise

According to Asher, TPR is based on the premise that the human brain has a biological
program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign language of the
deaf. The process is visible when we observe how infants internalize their first language.

It looks to the way that children learn their native language. Communication between
parents and their children combines both verbal and physical aspects. The child responds
physically to the speech of their parent. The responses of the child are in turn positively
reinforced by the speech of the parent. For many months the child absorbs the language
without being able to speak. It is during this period that the internalization and code
breaking occurs. After this stage the child is able to reproduce the language
spontaneously. With TPR the language teacher tries to mimic this process in class.

The method also promises double efficiency in terms of rate of learning, according to
several studies in the literature and referenced in the above book.

Classroom usage

In the classroom the teacher and students take on roles similar to that of the parent and
child respectively. Students must respond physically to the words of the teacher. The
activity may be a simple game such as Simon Says or may involve more complex
grammar and more detailed scenarios.

TPR can be used to practice and teach various things. It is well suited to teaching
classroom language and other vocabulary connected with actions. It can be used to teach
imperatives and various tenses and aspects. It is also useful for story-telling.

Because of its participatory approach, TPR may also be a useful alternative teaching
strategy for students with dyslexia or related learning disabilities, who typically
experience difficulty learning foreign languages with traditional classroom instruction.
According to its proponents, it has a number of advantages: Students will enjoy getting
up out of their chairs and moving around. Simple TPR activities do not require a great
deal of preparation on the part of the teacher. TPR is aptitude-free, working well with a
mixed ability class, and with students having various disabilities. It is good for
kinæsthetic learners who need to be active in the class. Class size need not be a problem,
and it works effectively for children and adults.

However, it is recognized that TPR is most useful for beginners, though it can be used at
higher levels where preparation becomes an issue for the teacher. It does not give
students the opportunity to express their own thoughts in a creative way. Further, it is
easy to overuse TPR-- "Any novelty, if carried on too long, will trigger adaptation." It can
be a challenge for shy students. Additionally, the nature of TPR places an unnaturally
heavy emphasis on the use of the imperative mood, that is to say commands such as "sit
down" and "stand up". These features are of limited utility to the learner, and can lead to
a learner appearing rude when attempting to use his new language. Of course, as a TPR
class progresses, group activities and descriptions can be used which continue the basic
concepts of TPR into full communication situations.
Teaching approaches: total physical response

Originally developed by James Asher, an American professor of psychology, in the

1960s, Total Physical Response (TPR) is based on the theory that the memory is
enhanced through association with physical movement. It is also closely associated with
theories of mother tongue language acquisition in very young children, where they
respond physically to parental commands, such as "Pick it up" and "Put it down". TPR as
an approach to teaching a second language is based, first and foremost, on listening and
this is linked to physical actions which are designed to reinforce comprehension of
particular basic items.

A typical TPR activity might contain instructions such as "Walk to the door", "Open the
door", "Sit down" and "Give Maria your dictionary". The students are required to carry
out the instructions by physically performing the activities. Given a supportive classroom
environment, there is little doubt that such activities can be both motivating and fun, and
it is also likely that with even a fairly limited amount of repetition basic instructions such
as these could be assimilated by the learners, even if they were unable to reproduce them
accurately themselves.

The above examples, however, also illustrate some of the potential weaknesses inherent
in the approach. Firstly, from a purely practical point of view, it is highly unlikely that
even the most skilled and inventive teacher could sustain a lesson stage involving
commands and physical responses for more than a few minutes before the activity
became repetitious for the learners, although the use of situational role-play could
provide a range of contexts for practicing a wider range of lexis. Secondly, it is fairly
difficult to give instructions without using imperatives, so the language input is basically
restricted to this single form. Thirdly, it is quite difficult to see how this approach could
extend beyond beginner level. Fourthly, the relevance of some of the language used in
TPR activities to real-world learner needs is questionable. Finally, moving from the
listening and responding stage to oral production might be workable in a small group of
learners but it would appear to be problematic when applied to a class of 30 students, for
example.

In defense of the approach, however, it should be emphasized that it was never intended
by its early proponents that it should extend beyond beginner level. (In theory it might be
possible to develop it by making the instructions lexically more complex (for example,
"Pick up the toothpaste and unscrew the cap"), but this does seem to be stretching the
point somewhat). In addition, a course designed around TPR principles would not be
expected to follow a TPR syllabus exclusively, and Asher himself suggested that TPR
should be used in association with other methods and techniques. In terms of the
theoretical basis of the approach, the idea of listening preceding production and learners
only is being required to speak when they are ready to do so closely resemble elements of
Stephen Krashen’s Natural Approach.

Short TPR activities, used judiciously and integrated with other activities can be both
highly motivating and linguistically purposeful. Careful choice of useful and
communicative language at beginner level can make TPR activities entirely valid. Many
learners respond well to kinesthetic activities and they can genuinely serve as a memory
aid. A lot of classroom warmers and games are based, consciously or unconsciously, on
TPR principles. As with other "fringe" methods, however, wholesale adoption of this
approach, to the total exclusion of any other, would probably not be sustainable for very
long.