Teaching Spoken English at Junior High School: A Comparison of TPR and PPP

Page No.: 
3
Writer(s): 
Christian Jones, University of Central Lancashire; Michelle Lees, Oita JET Programme; Natalie Donohue, Bilkent University; Karen Smith, University of Central Lancashire

This article reports on an experimental methods-comparison study, which was undertaken with beginner level junior high school students (aged 12 and 13) in Japan. The study aimed to investigate which type of teaching, Total Physical Response (TPR) or Present Practice Produce (PPP), was more effective in developing productive and receptive knowledge of a set of collocations. Results showed that both types of teaching had a significant impact upon the development of understanding and using the target language. However, there were no significant differences between the effectiveness of TPR and PPP, apart from a short-term benefit for PPP in terms of receptive knowledge. This shows that both types of teaching can have a positive impact upon learners of this age and level and that there is a need for further research to investigate the effectiveness of these communicative methodologies in this context.

本論は日本における初級レベルの中学生(12~13歳)を対象とした実験方法・比較研究を紹介したものである。本研究では、一連の連語の生産的・受容的知識を習得するために、Total Physical Response (TP-身体の動きを通して「聞くことの」の能力を発達させる方法)と、Present Practice Produce (PPP-教師が提示、学習者が練習・産出)のどちらの教授法がより効果的かを調査した。この2つの教授法は学習者の目標言語(英語)の理解や使用に重要な影響を与えるという結果がでた。しかし、受容知識におけるPPPの短期間の利点を除けば、両教授法に有意差はなかった。したがって、この2つの教授法はこの年齢と学習レベルの学習者には肯定的な効果をもたらすことを示しているので、これらのコミュニケーション教授法の効果を調査するさらなる研究が必要になるであろう。

 
PDF: 
Website developed by deuxcode.com