第六章 結論與建議
第一節 研究發展之限制
本研究主要根據 TPRS 教學與兒童第二語言習得相關理論及可理解性輸入
之理念，目的在發展出一套以 TPRS 教學為中心的美國兒童華語教學課程設計。
125
研究雖致力於資料蒐集，然而由於時間與空間及主客觀條件因素，使研究過程 中仍有未盡理想之處，其所面臨的研究限制如下：
（一） 方法
因為筆者在研究期間居住於灣而教師研究對象大部分居於在美國，因此主 要研究工具就是網上的問卷與電子郵件。雖然先進科技使得兩地交流變得十分 方便，但是這也讓研究內容少了些許人味。此外研究範圍也因此限制在有相對 應科技設備的人選之中。
（二） 問卷
雖然設計問卷的過程每個問題都要通過英文和華語母語者教師們的檢查，
才能發送給研究對象，但是回收問卷的反映十分明顯。有些問題對於受訪者來 說不夠清楚，他們會表示自己不明白問題的意義，或著回答內容跟問題無關，
甚至完全沒有回答。雖然這樣的案例不多，三十位受訪者其中只有一兩位有此 狀況，但因問題不夠清楚而沒有收到研究對象的回答，有可能讓本研究濕去有 價值的資料。
關於問卷的另外一個因素是，因為本問卷是一個介紹性的、範圍比較大的 調查，所以問卷上的問題比較多。值得一題的是本問卷要求受訪者寫出自己想 法的開放性問題，因此為了填問卷，研究對象需要花大概 30 分鐘的時間。因為 問題比較多，所以有些研究對象雖然有填問卷，但卻沒有寫完，這樣的現象也 造成研究對象人數的減少。
（三） 缺少 TPRS 教學有關的研究文獻與教材
在本論文的研究過程中，筆者知道 TPRS 相關研究十分不足。雖然筆者進 行了可理解性輸入的文獻回顧，但文獻回顧中缺乏近期 TPRS 教學或 TPRS 教材 的大型研究。
除了缺乏 TPRS 相關研究外，如第二章所述，針對小學課程，僅有一本
TPRS 教學法的華語教科書及其他教材（如以可理解性輸入為主的讀物）。雖然
TPRS 教學中可採納其他教材書，但缺少著重於 TPRS 教學法的教科書，為筆者
的研究與教材設計帶來限制。
126
第二節 對未來研究與建議
由於兒童華語教學是華語文教學領域中的啟蒙階段，隨著華語熱的不斷升 溫，華語教學走進小學的步伐也越來越快。在美國許多州的教育機構急欲增設 兒童華語相關課程的情況下，華語教學課程必須從兒童甚至幼兒階段作整體性 的全面規劃。而也期待更多華語教師與研究者投入完整的兒童華語課程、專業 的兒童華語師資培訓及相關兒童華語教材的編寫。
對未來有志從事兒童華語教學相關之研究者，除本研究結果外，還有一些 層面有待以後的研究繼續探討：
（一） 可針對實施與未實施 TPRS 教材的兒童學習者，做一相關性的比較 研究，以了解學生學習成效及學習態度方面有何差異。
（二） 與 TPRS 教材相關配套與多媒體的編寫與出版，例如：小學學齡兒 童的簡短故事書、學生活動本、音樂光碟。
（三） 擬訂一套由 K 到 5 年級的系列 TPRS 教材的編寫計劃，以美國華語 FLES 課程能使用。
隨著推行小學華語課程的趨勢越加流行，本研究中採用 TP RS教學法的教材
設計將會是華語教學領域所樂見的新研究成果。筆者更希望華語教師認為本教
材設計對其教學方式有所助益，並對以英語為母語者的小學華語教學領域做出
貢獻。
127
參考書目
一、 中文書目
吳明清（1991）。教育研究─基本觀念與方法分析。台北：五南。
施玉惠等（譯）（2003）。H. Douglas Brown著。原則導向教學法─教學互動的終極指 南（Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, 2nd ed）。台北：台灣培生教育。
葉德明（2002）。華語文教學規範與理論基礎。台北：師大書苑
歐用生 (1991)。內容分析法。載於黃光雄、簡茂發(主編)，教育研究法 (頁229-254)。
臺北市：師大書苑。
劉珣 (2000) 對外漢語教育學引論。北京：北京語言文化大學出版社。
劉珣（2002）。漢語作為第二語言教學簡論。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
蔡雅薰（2008）。美國各級學校K～12華語教材情境選用研究。中原華語文學報，2，
205-224。
二、 英文書目
Asher, J.J. (1997). Learning Another Language Through Actions. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Ray, B., & Seely, C. (2012). Fluency Through TPR Storytelling: Achieving Real Language Acquisition in School (6th ed.). Berkley, CA: Command Performance Language Institute and Blaine Ray Workshops.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press (Harvard University).
Bruner, J. S. (1978). The Role of Dialogue in Language Acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R.J.
Jarvella, and W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The Child’s Conception of Language (pp. 241–
256). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Genese, F. (Ed.). (1994). Educating second language children: the whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
128
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquistion. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piaget, J. (1974). The Child's Conception of Quantities. (Translated from the French by Pomerans,A.J.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Originally published,1941).
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rhodes, N.C., & Pufahl, I. (2010). Foreign Language Teaching in U.S. Schools: Results of a National Survey. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Slavic, B. (2007). TPRS in a Year!. E-Book: self published.
Slavic, Ben (2007b). PQA in a Wink! (2nd ed.). E-Book: self published.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
Wiggins, G., & McTigue, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. NJ: Prentice Hall
Willis, J. (1996). A Flexible Framework for Task-Based Teaching. In Willis, J., & Willis, D., Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 235-56). Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford:
Heinemann.
三、 教材
馬亞敏、李欣穎（2002）。輕鬆學漢語少兒版。香港：三聯書店。
吳威玲等（2006）。 遠東兒童中文。台北：遠東出版社。
盧毓文（2007）。 嘻哈說唱學中文。香港：資優教育有限公司。
劉富華（2005）。 漢語樂園。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
章悅華、張覓彥（2007）。我愛學中文。北京：北京大學出版社。
趙馬冰如等（2012）。快樂兒童華語。Palo Alto, CA: Better World Ltd.。
Bossus, R., & Bouard, C. (2000). Hélico et ses copains. Paris: European Language Institute.
Caparrós, C., & Burnham, C. (2009-2012). Superdrago. Madrid:SGEL Educación.
Gaab, C. (2002). ¡Hola Niños!. Chandler, AZ: TPRS Publishing, Inc.
129
Poletti, M., & Paccagnino, C. (2006). Grenadine. Paris: Hachette.
Zuchovicki, L.A. (2011). ¡Yo Quiero Pizza!. Ladera Ranch, CA: Conversa Books.
四、 網路資料
自 http://cccc.sc-top.org.tw/download/cccc/cccc_teacher_hb.pdfAmerican Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Foreign Language Enrollments in K–12 Public Schools: Are Students Prepared for a Global Society? (2011). 2012 年 08 月 15 日，取自
http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReportSummary2011.pdf
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Standards for Foreign Language Learning. 2013 年 4 月 14 日，取自 http://www.actfl.org/advocacy/discover- languages/advocacy/discover-languages/advocacy/discover-languages/resources-1?pageid=3392#standards
TPR-World (James J. Asher). What is TPR ?. 2013 年 3 月 13 日，取自 http://www.tpr-world.com/what2.html
Asia Society. Meeting the Challenge: Preparing Chinese Language Teachers for American Schools. 2013 年 4 月 15 日，取自 http://asiasociety.org/files/chineseteacherprep.pdf Authentic Education. Big Ideas. 2013 年 5 月 18 日，取自
http://www.authenticeducation.org/ae_bigideas/index.lasso
Ben Slavic. Ben Slavic TPRS Workshop Handouts. 2013 年 4 月 21 日，取自 http://www.benslavic.com/workshop-handouts.pdf
Blaine Ray. Blaine Ray TPR Storytelling. 2013 年 7 月 20 日，取自 http://www.blainerayTPRS.com/
British Council and BBC. A Task-based Approach (2004). 2013 年 4 月 20 日，取自 http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/a-task-based-approach
Center for Applied Lingusitics. Early Language Assessments: SOPA, ELLOPA & COPE.
2013 年 4 月 25 日，取自 http://www.cal.org/ela/sopaellopa/
130
Center for Applied Linguistics and National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. The Chinese K-5 Grade Level Expectations: Learner Profiles. 2012 年 8 月 15 日，取自 http://www.cal.org/projects/pdfs/chinese-k-5-grade-level-expectations.pdf
Center for Applied Linguistics and National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. Grade 1 Theme 1.B.1: What do we like to do with our friends and our family? Draft Chinese Curriculum. 2012 年 8 月 15 日，取自 http://www.cal.org/projects/pdfs/what-do-we-like-to-do-with-our-friends-and-our-family.pdf
Center for Applied Linguistics and National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. Grade 2 Theme 2.B: What do we do in our homes? Draft Chinese Curriculum. 2012 年 8 月 15 日，取自 http://www.cal.org/projects/pdfs/what-do-we-do-in-our-homes.pdf Center for Applied Linguistics and National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. Grade
K-5 Chinese Curriculum: Grade Level Essential Questions and Themes. 2012 年 8 月 15 日，取自 http://www.cal.org/projects/pdfs/enduring-understanding-essential-questions-and-themes.pdf
Center for Applied Linguistics and National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center.
Kindergarten Theme A.1 Who are we in our Chinese classroom? Draft Chinese Curriculum. 2012 年 8 月 15 日，取自 http://www.cal.org/projects/pdfs/who-are-we-in-our-Chinese-classroom.pdf
Council of Europe: Education and Languages. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). 2013 年 4 月 15 日，取自 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_EN.pdf
Mandarin Immersion Parents Council. Full Mandarin Immersion School List. 2013 年 4 月 20 日，取自 http://miparentscouncil.org/full-mandarin-immersion-school-list/
National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC). Chinese Curriculum Development (2006 - 2010). 2012 年 08 月 15 日，取自
http://www.cal.org/projects/chinesek5.html
National Security Education Program. 2013 年 3 月 15 日，取自 http://www.nsep.gov/
National Security Language Initiative (2006). 2013 年 3 月 15 日，取自 http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/58733.htm
New York University, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development.
Developing Chinese Language Teachers Program. 2012 年 9 月 5 日，取自 http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/dclt
Susan Y. Rui and Naomi J. Zhang. Assessment for Chinese FLES Program. 2013 年 5 月 30 日，取自
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&
ved=0CFMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsteinhardt.nyu.edu%2Fmetrocenter.olde%
2Fprograms%2FALBETAC%2FIndex%2Fwhat'sNew%2FSOPA%2C%2520Assessm ent%2520for%2520Chinese%2520Language%2520Program.ppt&ei=N1S_UbnsAtW
131
g4AO5vIHADQ&usg=AFQjCNGQ0jNitAa7TA22i_kIwFcTm-0JNA&sig2=YWTCfnA0GgJ_dGHLNIJ-YA&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg Waltz, T . (2013, July 29) Re: Circling related structures [Online forum comment]
.
Retrieved from
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/moretprs/conversations/topics/132571
五、 論文
王稐綸 （2010）英語地區五至七歲兒童華語教材研究與設計編寫—以澳洲學童為例。
國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
朱國華（2009）7～12 歲兒童華語教學音樂活動設計。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學 研究所碩士論文。
周睿婷 （2012）六至十歲兒童之可預測圖畫書華語教學設計研究。國立台灣師範大學 華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
洪瑄鍞（2011）以任務型教學活動應用於海外兒童華語教材之原則—以非魯賓僑校兒 童為例。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
陳怡慧 （2010）遠東生活華語三之教材活動設計研究 。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學 研究所碩士論文。
張玲嘉（2011）兒童華語教材課室活動編寫研究—以國際學校小學部為例。國立台灣 師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
鄧巧如（2008）「遊戲中學習」-7～12 歲兒童華語遊戲教學之活動設計。國立台灣師 範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
楊忠宜 (2012) 青少年華語教材研究與設計─以 12-15 歲英語青少年為例。國立台灣師 範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
六、 期刊
Asher, J.J. (1969). The Total Physical Response Approach to Second Language
Learning. Modern Language Journal. 53, 3-17.
132
Skehan, P. (1996). A Framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction. Applied Linguistics. 17 (1), 38-62.
133
附錄
附錄一、受訪者問卷
華語教師對青少年華語教材之需求問卷
親愛的華語老師們：
The following questionnaire is a part of the survey I’m conducting for my thesis. The focus of my research is on Mandarin curriculum design for native English speaking elementary school students. I would like to examine the current state of Mandarin teaching at this age level by understanding your teaching experiences such as methods, materials and curriculum/lesson plan design. I believe that my research can help develop a curriculum most suitable for this age group.
敬祝教安
國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所研究生 張柏漪敬上 中華民國 102 年 04 月 15 日
一、 填寫人背景
1. 您的母語為何? ________________________
2. 年齡:
□
20 歲以下□
21～30 歲□
31～40 歲□
41～50 歲□
51 歲以上3. 性別:
□ 男 □ 女
4. 最高學歷:
□ 高中 □ 大學 □ 碩士 □ 博士
5. 請問您有對外華語教學學歷或州立華語教師執照嗎？
□ 兩者皆有。
134
□ 我只有華語教學學歷。
□ 我只有華語教師執照。
□ 兩者皆無。
6. 您目前教學的地區在哪裡兒? __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __
二、 語言背景
1. 請問您是母語者華語教師或非母語者華語教師？
2. 請列出您出生與長大的地方。.
三、 小學華語教學經驗
1. 請問您實際的華語教學經驗有多久?
2. 學校類型:
□ 公立學校
□ 私立學校
□ 宗教學校
□ 特許學校
□ 國際學校
3. 您教的華語課程屬於哪一種？
□ FLES 小學外語教學課程
□ FLEX 小學外語探索課程
□ Bilingual/Dual Language/Immersion 華語浸沉式課程 4. 請問您在小學教華語嗎? □ 是 □ 不是
5. 請問您班級學生年級為何？請在下面註明其華語課的程度 （比如：初級、
中級、高級等）
6. 請問您在其他國家有對外兒童華語的教學經驗嗎？如果有，請寫出曾任
教的國家。
135
7. 請問您教兒童華語課程多久了？並請與您全部的華語教學經驗相比。
8. 您認為教小學華語最困難的地方為何?
9. 請問您認為小學開始上華語課比中學或高中才學華語的優點為何？
10. 請問您認為小學開始上華語課的缺點為何？
11. 請問在華語教學課堂上您教繁體、簡體字，還是兩種都教？
□ 繁體
□ 簡體
□ 兩種都教
12. 請問在華語教學課堂上教發音時您用的是漢語拼音、注音符號，還是任 何系統都不用？
□ 漢語拼音
□ 注音符號
□ 無系統
四、 華語教學課程設計的經驗與概念
1. 請問誰設計您目前使用的小學華語課程？
2. 請問您的華語課程有什麼特定目標？比如：聽、說、讀與寫。
3. 請問上述目標對設計的華語課程有何影響？
4. 從您最初設計華語課程到現在，這些目標有什麼重大的改變？
5. 如果目標改變了，請問是什麼改變？而課程目標是否依然達成？如果目
136
標沒有改變，請寫‘沒有'。
6. 您認為什麼是設計小學華語課程最重要的因素？
五、 華語教學法的經驗與概念
1. 請問您認為什麼是最有效的教學法？
2. 請問您在華語教學課堂上主要使用的教學法為何？
3. 請簡要說明您在華語課堂使用的教學步驟。
六、 兒童華語課本的概念
1. 請問在您的華語教學經驗中，什麼教材最有效？
2. 請問您覺得哪些部分對教學最有幫助？比如：閱讀、會話、詞彙、語法、
主題（話題）單元等等。
七、 華語教學的經驗與概念
1. 請問您的學生在學華語時，通常遇到哪些類型的困難？比如：發音、語 法、詞彙、語用、文化。
2. 這些困難當中，您的學生最常遇到的是哪一種？
3. 請問您怎麼在華語教學課堂上讓學生保持興趣？
4. 依您之見，成為一個有效與成功的對外華語教師的因素為何？
5. 請留下您的電子郵件，以便日後將此份調查的結果寄送給您。
137
138
附錄二、訪談問題
教師訪談問題
一、 測驗要求
1. 您的華語課程是否必須包括測驗？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
2. 課程內容是否要求您進行特定類型的測驗，或者身為教師的您有權決 定測驗內容？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
二、 聽力測驗
3. 針對聽力，您使用何種測驗？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
4. 針對聽力，您認為何種測驗最可靠，且最適合小學生？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
三、 口語能力測驗
5. 針對口語能力，您使用何種測驗？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
6. 針對口語能力，您認為何種測驗最可靠，且最適合小學生？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
四、 閱讀測驗
7. 針對閱讀能力，您使用何種測驗？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
8. 針對閱讀能力，您認為何種測驗最可靠，且最適合小學生？
139
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
五、 寫作測驗
9. 針對寫作能力，您使用何種測驗？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
10. 針對寫作能力，您認為何種測驗最可靠，且最適合小學生？
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
附錄三、TPRS 的英文原文
140
The following are the original English passages from Ray and Seely (2012) that are summarized in Chapter 2 of this thesis (page numbers have been included).
The Keys to Fluency (pp. 8)
1. A language class must be comprehensible.
2. Students must receive sufficient aural comprehensible input of basic structures and vocabulary to be able to truly acquire them. This enables students to use them orally to say what they want to say in their new languages. This is the golden key to fluency.
3. The aural input must continually maintain the interest of students.
4. There must be at least one vehicle for developing fluent oral expression—a way for students to express themselves orally in their own words, not memorized lines. This must include a way for them to develop an often ignored aspect of fluency—
connected speech in which they say one sentence after another.
5. The class must be conducted in almost completely in the target language.
6. The process must involve relatively little stress. Preferably, it should be easy and enjoyable and/or interesting.
7. Teacher expectations must be high.
The TPRS Classroom Fluency Model (pp. 8)
The TPRS model for fluency consists of four main elements:
1. Making the class 100% comprehensible.
2. Frequent aural repetition of the targeted material in the development of stories.
3. Keeping the class interesting.
4. Oral interaction about students themselves, topics of interest to them and stories that they hear and that they read.
The Main Techniques of TPRS (pp. 14-16)
To keep a class fully comprehensible, our main techniques are:
1. Conscientious limitation of the input, specifically the grammatical features and the vocabulary. This means that (a) when a new items is introduced, it is clarified immediately and (b) care is taken not to introduce extraneous items.
2. Regular checking on the comprehension of a few selected students, usually by having them orally translate particular sentences, phrases and words.
3. Quick clarification whenever there appears to be lack of understanding or even a hint of doubt about meaning. The most effective means of doing this usually is (a) translating or (b) quickly asking and answering about previously introduced material.
141
4. Using the first language also to quickly explain grammatical elements in context.
We explain them by saying what they mean, not by using grammatical
terminology. We don’t explain grammar when it’s not in context, so we don’t explain it before students meet it in context.
5. Explaining TPRS class procedures in the first language.
6. Using cognates and translating them whenever their meaning is not obvious to students.
7. Taking care to speak at a speed that is comprehensible to all students at any given time.
8. Making sure at all times that the pace of the class is not too fast for any of the students.
9. Having one or more students orally translate almost all readings.
10. Not directly correcting students when they make mistakes orally. Instead, we notice what element has not been acquired so that they might provide more repetitions of it. Sometimes we also restate correctly what student intended to say.
To provide oral repetitions in sufficient quantity, the techniques we utilize the most are:
1. “Asking a story,” rather than telling a story. In asking a story, teacher is involving students in the creation of the story. Students are able to provide part of the content in the story while the teacher maintains control of the content, deciding whether or not specifics suggested by students should be included.
2. “Circling,” asking a series of different types of questions about a particular fact (a phrase or a word) in a story.
3. Using different levels of questions, such as yes/no, either/or and why questions.
4. Making sure teacher keeps orally providing interesting repetitions until students are able to understand the material instantly, i.e., without translating mentally.
Their processing speed develops gradually as they keep hearing and understanding the repetitions.
5. Adding new details to a sentence to allow for further questioning about the same sentence.
To keep interest high, teachers do a variety of things, the principal ones being:
1. Establishing and sticking to TPRS class procedures.
2. Having students participate in the development of stories.
3. Making students the star of stories.
4. Dramatizing stories with students often playing themselves.
5. Asking students about their lives.
142
6. Having discussions about how readings relate to students’ own lives.
7. Using unexpected (and bizarre) content in stories and encouraging students to do the same.
8. Paying attention to signs of lagging interest and, when they appear, introducing new details, changing pace or changing activity.
The Fluency Circle vs. The Reading Circle (pp. 18)
In TPRS we refer to basic structures and vocabulary as the fluency circle (or the small circle). We limit vocabulary to a few hundred words. The fluency circle is a concept. It starts out very small and expands as students understand more and more language. We spend class time practicing the fluency circle. When language learners speak, they nearly always use the easiest way they know to say things.
The reading circle (or the big circle) includes the fluency circle but also refers to the vocabulary and structures not needed for fluency. This concept is important for teachers so they will only practice vocabulary and structures needed for fluency during class…Reading circle words do turn up in class, in readings and in speech. When they do, the teacher quickly translates them and then doesn’t deal with them further.
3 Main Steps of TPRS (pp.19)
1. Establish Meaning:
We establish meaning mainly through translation because it’s clear and fast. We also use gestures, pictures, and props are used along with translation because it helps students process language faster. We always err on the side of clarity.
2. Ask a story:
We ask a story because asking a question requires a response. When our students answer a question, we have evidence of comprehension. We also ask a story because we can use repetitive questions. We can use same structure as we asking the question, in many different ways. This allows students to hear the structure many times, without adding a lot of vocabulary words, which would make it much more difficult to make the lesson comprehensible…
When we ask a story (step 2), we also have the story take place in three locations.
In the first location we introduce a problem. The problem is something that can be resolved like a boy needing or wanting something. In the second location we make an unsuccessful attempt to solve the problem. We either change the problem or add information about why problem can’t be solved in that location. Finally, we solve the problem solved in the third location…This allows us to make lessons even more repetitive, and helps students remember the plot and the details of story.
143 3. Read and discuss:
We (a) translate a paragraph, (b) ask the facts about paragraph, (c) add additional details to the story and (d) create a parallel story.
a. To ensure complete understanding we (i) choose a student to read paragraph in English (the students’ first language) or (ii) do a choral translation in which we read a line in target language and students chorally say line in English. Students also write down meaning of any word they don’t understand.
b. We simply ask the facts of the paragraph sentence by sentence.
c. To enhance interest, we add additional details to written story. We can add a detail by asking students a question and having them guess or we can just tell them the details.
d. To make the discussion more interesting and repetitive, we also creates a parallel story about a student in class. As we discuss and add details about the written story, we also add details about the student in the class.
TPRS procedures (pp. 20)
When teaching with TPRS, a teacher will do one of the following:
When teaching with TPRS, a teacher will do one of the following: