Reflective Journal No. 2 for Teaching English Abroad Methods Course

Leaving GTM and DM behind, we arrive at the 'behaviorists and reformed behaviorists' answer: ALM and TPR.

Compare (state what is similar) and contrast (what is different) between these two methods in light of Approach/Design/Procedure? Don't write about all of them, you only only have 150 words or so. Pick one or two aspects and get into it in a deeper way.

This is due on Sunday late evening again, the 17th.

Roger
Upvote Upvoted 0

Comments

avelara
By comparing and contrasting the Audiolingual Method and Total Physical Response, we can observe the evolution of the behaviorists’ attempt to address the issues and criticisms from one approach to the other. For instance, while both ALM and TPR do appear to be better methods of teaching language speaking skills in comparison to GTM (which focuses more on the analysis of the language), the ALM procedure is one that limits creativity by calling for the use of repetitive drills that do not teach the language completely, thus not allowing you to transfer such skills in real life. Language is spontaneous and organic, but these drills do not provide the opportunity for students to produce language in this manner. TPR, on the other hand, allows the body to be engaged in the process and create a memory imprint of such actions. Also, ALM requires everyone to participate and repeat the drills, but TPR does not require that full cooperation. Nevertheless, by using TPR with other methods and techniques, we could be one step closer to teaching oral proficiency in a more effective manner.
Roy Huang
If we are comparing and contrasting ALM and TPR in terms of A/D/P we can see similarities in their approach because both theories revolve around the concept of stimulus-response. However, in terms of design they differ because ALM designed their curriculum with the assumption of foreign language learning is a mechanical habit formation and by memorizing dialogues; fluency can be achieved. Whereas TPR bases their curriculum on psychologies' "trace-theory" where it involves motor skills instead of just speaking. With this being said ALM uses repetitiveness and just that in their procedure, which leads to stress on the language learner, while TPR relieves some of this "stress" and allows successful language acquisition.
mrmominoc
In light of Approach, ALM and TPR are quite similar in that a scientific investigation was directed in learning a language. An idea of stimulus to language student to a response behavior was the desired method of learning. In ALM the stimulus was in a form of memorized habits based on correct responses and pattern drills. Similarly, TPR was based on stimulus based on the correct use of language and use of pattern drills. Both methods proceeded on the premise that mistakes are to be minimized. TPR took the pattern drills one step further by adding physical movement in the learning of the language. This physical movement approach was based on the observation of how children learn a language. Moreover, the idea in TPM of brain development played a role in learning a language.

ALM and TPM followed similar traits in the Design aspect of a method. Both held the instructor as having complete control in the degree, progression, and execution of learning a language. Other similarities include the learner as being directed as a listener and performer. The difference with ALM and TPM was TPM’s addition of physical movement as an ingredient. Both methods looked at stress as being a limiting factor in learning a language. Care was made to make stress a low factor by the learner being given correct responses to learn.

In Procedure, ALM used repetitive execution of responses as being just verbal. Like wise TPM was repetitive in nature but a more physical involvement played a role. This was exhibited by the actual ‘action’ being learned or a gesture. ALM played mainly on the way patterns can be used in learning. Whereas TPM modeled physical action can be used in learning.

In light of a totally scientific approach to language learning ALM and TPM enjoyed a following and also a demise as the study of language progressed. The methods are not wrong per se but a result of the times language study was in its infancy. Both methods had their strong points and with TPM can still be used in certain aspects today.

Julie Cho
ALM and TPR are similar yet very different methods. Similarities between ALM and TPR are that these methods use repetition (ALM by drills, sentences they hear and repeat), while TPR students use their body and connect with the words they are saying as they are saying it. They are both doing drills as they are learning. Also, grammar is taught inductively in both methods. However, both are seen as ineffective because TPR is useful for beginning language learners and not for students at advance levels. ALM was frowned upon because people realized that language is not acquired through habit formation (by doing drills).while the design aspect of ALM was carefully prepared with tests, and educational information for the high success rate of their students, TPR was all about stress free, right brained learning that will let students learn language in a stress-free environment.
Gema Ruiz
The ALM and TPR method differ in their as the ALM has a linear structure while the TPR method focuses on a “stimulus-response” approach. The Audio-lingual Method places greater importance on the acquisition of grammar indirectly through drills. Learning takes place as students acquire the grammar structure indirectly after numerous repetitions of structured sentences. While the TPR method was based on how children acquired their native language, therefore, it takes on a “stimulus-response” approach where the target is for students to be able to comprehend and understand the language before being able to reproduce it. Another difference is the physical movement involved in the TPR method, which was also thought to reinforce learning in children acquiring their native language. However, both methods require little if any input from the student, which limits the effectiveness of the methods in helping second language learners. While the TPR method is useful in beginning learners as it provides a stress-free environment for them to acquire the fundamentals however, a different approach should be used for more advanced students.
Katherine Knight
Methods in teaching develop from a balance of approach, procedure and designs in which a student benefits from practicing language. The Audiolingual Method and Total Physical Response are two approaches to speaking and pronunciation that allow students to orally practice a language in two different ways. ALM deals more with repetition as a mechanical habit, whereas TPR allows students to practice their language motor skills with actual conversation. The approach of TPR is, in my opinion, much more useful because it engages the students with real-world conversation that actually pertains to everyday life. It allows students to add their own creativity and way of learning language. Language is complex yet flexible and needs to be taught in an open environment that caters to conversation. Students themselves are their biggest obstacles, and using TPR to create a stress-free learning environment where a student isn’t afraid to speak is crucial for effective language learning.
Ann Whitely
The Audio-lingual Method and Total Physical Response are both categorized under structural theory, yet their application into the classroom differs greatly. In regards to their structural approach, these two methods both rely on heavy grammar, sentence patterns for understanding the intensity of the material heard. Interestingly, writing and reading occur secondary to grammar explanation of oral-aural discussions. Furthermore, analogies enable a process of generalization of new items in order to induce a variety of patterns of context.
In contrast, the effects of these methods show different effects on the classroom. TPR uses an affective role in language learning, while the Audio-lingual method strives for the functional approach to conversation. TPR’s brain lateralization enables for multiple memories to be stored of new vocabulary through a method known as stimulus-response view. While the audio-lingual stores memory through the listening and repetitious drills of dialogues of similarly stimulus-response-reinforcement. This reinforcement creates the desired behavior to occur with a positive response.
Kristen Provencher
The audio-lingual method approaches language acquisition from a somewhat more simplified standpoint than the total physical response method. It simply focuses on the movement of your mouth and drills in the muscle movements there without taking note of context so much. In my opinion, it's much less natural than TPR. Children don't just learn by using solely their mouths and repeating over and over. TPR mimics language acquisition more closely than ALM in that it provides a context for words and phrases through moving the body appropriately according to what is being said. It records the words and phrases (supposedly) twice as effectively as ALM because the brain processes it both with your mouth and then your body. However, both of these methods are focused on repetitive behavior and just interpret that somewhat differently.
ucitfl
TPR is a method that uses physical (motor activity) movement to react to verbal input (coordination of speech and action) in order to reduce student inhibitions. It allows students to react to language without thinking too much, facilitates long term retention, and reduces student anxiety and stress. TPR is a natural method, which sees first and second language as parallel processes. Objective is to learn the language action base drills and to use it in the imperative forms. Asher stresses that the method should be used in association with other methods and techniques. TPR method depends on materials, teacher voice, actions and gesture.

The Audiolingual method places heavy emphasis on spoken rather than written language, stressing habit formation as a mode of learning. Memorization, role playing and structure drilling are the main activities. Audiolingual approaches do not depend so much on the instructor's creative ability and do not require excellent proficiency in the language. They are easy to be implemented, cheap to be maintained.

quincy1012
Something similar between ALM and TPR is both their usage of drills. Their drills focus on a single word or phrases and makes the students memorize by repetition. I feel like the ALM would be useful when teaching adult classes because that is what they think to be useful. While people can argue that ALM brings students a lot of stress, adults seem to be at their best while doing drills. On the other hand, TPR definitely should be used at least from children to teenagers because of the physical activity. Most adults are already trained to program things while children have a shorter attention span; I feel like that is why so many teachers have physical activities in their classrooms now. TPR should be used carefully though, I feel like it would be very easy for the teenagers to feel patronized if the physical tasks are simple ones (like lifting things).
Chanel Paek
ALM and TPR are similar in design because of the learner's roles in the method. In both ALM and TPR, the learner is expected to follow only the teachers instruction and there is little room for creativity. In ALM, the students must repeat the teacher exactly. Thus, the student is not able to create sentences that differ from the dialogue learnt. TPR is similar because it is also strict about what the student can learn. The learner is restricted because they can only learn words that are associated with physical motions. Certain things such as dialogue, more advanced vocabulary, and word nuances cannot be learned paired with a physical motion. ALM and TPR are different because the learner learns dialogue with ALM and vocabulary with TPR.
Lorena
The Audiolingual method and the total physical response method take different approaches to teaching a foreign language. Both methods attempt to offer an alternative teaching style to the traditional Grammar-Translation Method and Direct Method. ALM uses repetition exercises to familiarize students with common words and pronunciation of the target language. The urgency that prompted the creation of the ALM grants teachers the opportunity to focus primarily on pronunciation rather than on historical, cultural language context. This method allows students to solidify a set of language sounds in their minds. Through active repetition students are able to recognize and correct the target language. The TPR method take a more spontaneous and energetic approach to language learning. By associating physical movement with speech patterns, students instructed in this method acquire language in a similar way to how they learned their first language. The TPR method illustrates the importance of an emotional and psychological association or attachment to language learning. Language learning should not simply entail the mindless repetition of words but the active psychological and physical envelopment of the target language.
Kei Lam
In terms of design, TPR and ALM are similar in that both use dialogue and drills as the basis of classroom practices. Correct pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are emphasized.

The two methods differ in that one breaks down the language into parts (phrases) to be studied while the other one focuses more on memorizing sentences as a whole. In ALM, after a dialogue has been presented and memorized, specific grammatical patterns in the dialogue are selected and become the focus of various kinds of drill and pattern-practice exercises. In TPR, sentence-based syllabus is employed. Unlike methods that operate from a grammar-based or structural view of the core elements of language, TPR requires initial attention to meaning rather than to the form of items. In addition, imperative drills are the major classroom activity, which are used to elicit physical actions and activity on the part of the learner.

Add a comment

Add Website URL »