IMPLEMENTING TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE (TPR) METHOD IN TEACHING ENGLISH VOCABULARY TO YOUNG LEARNERS Anggraini, Dwi Wahyuni1, and Purnawarman, Pupung2 Department of English Education, Indonesia University of Education
[email protected],
[email protected]
ABSTRACT This prime focus of this study is implementing Total Physical Response (TPR) method in teaching English vocabulary to young learners. The study was aimed to investigate the implementation of TPR method in improving students’ vocabulary mastery and the students’ responses toward the implementation of TPR method in teaching English vocabulary. Quantitative research method is used to analyse the data in this study. This study used one group pre-test post-test design with two treatment meetings. The instrument used in this study was writing vocabulary tests (pre-test and post-test). This study also used questionnaire techniques as instrument to describe students’ responses toward this technique. The participants in this study were one class consisting of 32 students in the sixth grade of an Elementary School in Bandung. The result of pre-test and post-test were analyzed by dependent t-test and the questionnaire was analyzed using formula. All the data were analyzed to explore how TPR method conducted in the classroom. The result of this study showed that Total Physical Response method gave significant influence to improve students’ vocabulary mastery and students’ learning motivation. TPR method helped the students in recalling the words. Based on the findings, it is recommended that Total Physical Response is able to used in teaching English vocabulary, particularly in helping the students to recall the words quickly. Keywords: Total Physical Response, teaching vocabulary, young learners.
1. Introduction It has been known vvocabulary plays an
teachers in elementary school do not give
important
learning
mastery because teaching vocabulary has
especially to young learners. Carter and Mc.
been included in teaching reading (Dewi,
Carthy (1998) state that vocabulary is the
2010).
heart of language teaching and learning.
observation
Without vocabulary mastery, learning a
preferred to use translating and memorizing
language especially English will become a
words in order to the students felt bored
great
during English lesson.
role
difficulty
in
for
language
young
much attention to their students’ vocabulary
learners.
Furthermore, Cameron (2005) believes that
Besides, by
Considering
based researcher
those
on the
issues,
personal teacher
learning
building the useful vocabulary especially at
vocabulary can be done through various
elementary level is central to the learning of
methods. This study investigates one of the
a foreign language because the process of
language teaching methods named TPR
learning words changes in nature as it
(Total Physical Response) method. TPR is a
continues. However,
language teaching method built around the
many of English 1
coordination of speech and action; it
Furthermore, Suhendan (2013) in his study
attempts to teach language through physical
reveals that process of learning language by
(motor) activity (Asher 20010; Curtain and
using TPR become interesting and easy for
Dahlberg, 2010; Larsen-Freeman, 2004;
the students because the student acted out
Morley 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2002).
the lists of new vocabulary into physical
This method is considered to be more
movement.
effective and enjoyable compared to the
investigated the implementation of Total
conventional method that still could be
Physical Response in teaching writing of
found. Young learners could experience the
procedural text. This study was implemented
interesting learning process because they are
in one of Junior High Schools in Bandung.
physically engage (Brown, 2001). Pinter
The result of the study showed that the
(2006) stated that the activities in TPR will
implementation of Total Physical Response
ensure that young learners can hear the new
used by the students’ helped them to recall
vocabulary in a meaningful context and
the vocabularies and the steps of their
respond nonverbally first. Besides, since
activities. Furthermore, the students also
they show their preference to proceed input
could understand the generic structure of
in kinesthetic and tactile modalities, this
procedure text structurally.
Besides,
Silmi
(2017)
method can be seen as one of the best
From the studies mentioned above, many
methods for teaching vocabulary to young
studies on the implementation of Total
learners (Saville-Troike, 2006).
Physical Response (TPR) showed positive
Some previous studies have investigated
result, but only few study investigates the
the effects of the TPR method and other
implementation of Total Physical Response
techniques in teaching English. Decker
in
(2008) investigated the effectiveness of
School. Hence, the researcher tried to
Total Physical Response in storytelling in
conduct the similar research involving the
secondary foreign language teaching. The
participants of the sixth grade of Elementary
study was conducted in one of secondary
School. In this regard, this study aims to find
school in Spanyol and the participants
out: (1) The effectiveness of implementing
consisted of 25 students. The findings of this
Total Physical Response (TPR) in improving
study
student’s vocabulary mastery. (2) The
showed
that
the
use
of
TPR
teaching
vocabulary
student’s
students
teaching by using Total Physical Response
increase.
Moreover,
a
toward
Elementary
storytelling, the level of engagement of the could
responses
in
vocabulary
research by Castro (2010) reveals that TPR
(TPR). The hypothesis of this study were:
using storytelling could make a significant
H0: There is no improvement of the
difference
on
students’
memory.
The
students’ vocabulary mastery after being
participants of this research consisted of 25
taught by using Total Physical Response
students in the ESL classroom for adults.
(TPR) method. 2
H1: There is an improvement of the
Second, if adolescent or adults put
students’ vocabulary mastery after being
themselves as language learners; young
taught by using Total Physical Response
learners
(TPR) method.
themselves as language learners (Pinter,
have
lower
awareness
about
2006). Adolescents or adults would realize when they make mistake and would try to
2. Literature Review 2.1 The Characteristics of Young Learners
resolve it. On the other side, young learners
Young learners are not the same as
still need guidance from teacher to correct
adolscents or adults. In learning foreign
their mistake.
language, young learners have different
Third, they are more concerned abotu
characteristics from them. If adolescents or
themselves. Hence, they will be more
adults are able to understand the language
curious if the lesson uses them as the main
systme such as grammar, young learners still
topic. Fourth, they need more attention and
have confusion in thinking about it (Pinter,
guidance from the teacher since they have
2006).
limited knowledge about the world. In
The condition happens because young
addition, they are enthusiastic in learning
learners have some special characteristics.
and curious about the world around them
First, as mentioned before, they cannot
(Harmer, 2001). Therefore, teacher should
analyze language yet because they are not
be patient when they keep questioning about
ready for thinking about the language
anything. Last, they are easy to get bored
system (Pinter, 2006). It is difficult for them
(Harmer,
to understand abstract concepts such as
interested with fantasy, imagination, and
grammar (Harmer, 2001). However, they
physical movement (Pinter, 2006). Thus,
may be able to understand message or
providing activities which include those
meaning of words fom meaningful contexts.
things can make young learners enjoy the
It implies that we cannot teach them the
process of learning.
2001).
However,
they
are
language system like grammar straightly.
Furthermore, Scott and Ytreberg (2004)
Teachers can use story or song as the
argue that young learners are positive and
teaching teachnique. In the story or song, the
enthusiastic in learning. When the teacher
teachers put sentences which use certain
corrects their mistakes, they believe in the
structure and repeat it as many as possible.
correction. Thus, the teacher should not give
Through this way, young learners can learn
them wrong example or correction because
the structure indirectly. Moreover, Harmer
if they memorize that, it will be worst.
(2001) argues that young learners often learn
Besides, young learners also rely on the
indirectly than directly. They learn from
spoken word and physical world to convey
everything around them than focusing on
and understand the meaning (Scott and
what they are being taught (Harmer, 2001).
Ytreberg, 2004). In line with Scott and 3
Ytreberg, Piaget states that young learners
context (Pinter, 2006). Hence, arranging
start at exploring words physically and grasp
stress free activity such as storytelling can
things or called as the sensori motor stage
make young learners more involved with the
before
learning
finally
achieving
the
formal
process
because
they
enjoy
operational stage where abstraction becomes
something which relates to fantasy or
increasingly possible (Harmer, 2001). They
imagination (Pinter, 2006). Besides, the
develop their knowledge when physically
teacher should provide physical activities in
interacting since they learn through their
order
individual interaction and exploration.
understanding the meaning of words.
to
help
young
learners
in
All characteristics above show that young learners are so unique. They need
2.3 Total Physical Response
special treatment from teachers. Therefore,
Total Physical Response (TPR) is a
the teachers of young learners should be
language teaching method based on the
careful when arranging the lesson plan. They
coordination of speech and action. It is
should choose the right approach for
developed by James Asher, a professor of
teaching their students.
psychology
at
San
Jose
University,
California (Asher, 1966). He believes that 2.2 Teaching Vocabulary to Young Learners
young learners respond physically first
Building up the skill and knowledge is
before starting to produce verbal responses
started from learning vocabulary. In recent
(Khorasgani and Khanehgir, 2017). For that
years, since vocabulary is an important part
reason, TPR has a goal to teach language
of language learning, it becomes the main
through physical or motor activity.
stage
in
(Cameron,
teaching 2005;
foreign Nunan,
language
Furthermore,
TPR
is
continous
2003).
application of the scaffolding strategy.
Furthermore, the process of learning of
Young learners learn effectively through
words changes in nature as it continues
scaffolding by the adults. In TPR lesson,
(Cameron, 2005). For that reason, it is
teacher guides the learning of a new word by
believed that the earlier vocabulary is
demonstrating its meaning and then with
learned, the best result will it be.
drawing assistance when it is no longer
In teaching vocabulary to young learners,
needed
(Savic,
2016).
Therefore,
the
in order to get the maximum result, teachers
comprehensible input could be gained by the
should provide them with fun activities. If
students through TPR.
adults can guess the meaning of new words
In
addition,
the
combination
of
and patterns by using their knowledge,
vocabulary with physical action could give
young learners tend to pick up new words
good effect on students’ memory since they
when they are having fun. They also only
have
could work out message fom meaningful
performing appropriate action (Carter and 4
to
fulfill
the
learning
task by
McCarthy, 1998). Besides, the involvement
the only way to participate in the lesson
of physical activity in this method could
is by following the rules.
reduce the learners’ stress and create god
Reacting to student’s responses; this
mood which will result in good achievement
technique has an aim to increase
in learning.
students’ interest and speaking fluency. In short, along the lesson using TPR,
2.3.1 How to Use Total Physical Response
teacher should give interesting activity,
(TPR)
show enthusiasm, and provide support to the
In teaching vocabulary by using TPR,
students. Hence, the goal of the lesson could
there are some steps that could be done by
be achieved successfully.
the teacher. The following are the steps, 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study applied one group pretest-
which are proposed by Gross (2007), there are: 1. Write the meaning of the new word in
posttest design of pre-experimental research.
the board and use gesture to make it
The effects of the treatment are judged by
clearer.
the difference between the pretest and
2. Ask question using new words. For
posttest score. Therefore, this study does not
example, if the word is noun, ask
provide comparison with a control group
whether students like it or not. If the
(Best, 1981). Here is the illustration of one
word is verb, ask whether students do it
group pretest-posttest design as proposed by
or not.
Best (1981).
3. Invite reactions by students. 4. Make sure that students understand
O1
X
O2
everything. At the step, teachers have to show their
Where:
interest and enthusiasm in order to make
O1 : Pretest
students interested in the lesson. Besides, the
X : Treatment
teacher should look for students’ confusion
O2 : Posttest
and make it clear by using gesture.
There were several reasons for choosing
Besides the above activities, there are
one group protest-posttest design to be
some advanced techniques of using TPR
employed in this study. This design was
which were developed through practice by
chosen since it was not feasible to apply true
professional TPR teachers (Ray, 2004). The
experimental design. The sample of the
techniques are:
study was chosen purposively. Thus, one
Playing the games; this technique could
group pretest-posttest design was chosen.
increase students’ level of concern since
Besides, it was impossible to involve control group in the study because of the limitation 5
of time and cost that were also became the
3.4 Data Collecting Procedure and Analysis The data collection was gathered by test
consideration.
instruments (pre-test and post-test) and 3.2 Population and Sample The population of this study was the
questionnaire. The pre-test has a goal to
sixth grade students of an elementary school
test score was taken before the treatment.
in Bandung. One class of the population was
Meanwhile, post-test was administered after
purposively chosen to be the sample.
the treatment was done. It was conducted in
According to Best (1981), a small part of a
order to find out the significance of students’
population selected for observation and
vocabulary mastery after the treatment was
analysis is called as a sample. In this study,
given. Furthermore, questionnaire may serve
the sample involved 32 students, 15 male
as the most appropriate and useful data
students and 17 female students. The
gathering device in research project. It could
consideration for choosing the sample is
save time and expense because of the
based on some characteristics of the
availability of a number of respondents in
students. First, the students learn English as
one place. Moreover, it also provides a high
the local content. Second, they are native
proportion
Indonesians. Third, they used to learn
respondents. The use of questionnaire in this
English by using conventional method such
study was intended to find out the students’
as memorization.
responses towards the implementation of
measure students’ initial mastery. The pre-
of
usable
responses
from
TPR method in their class where seven 3.3 Research Instrument There are two collected data. The first
questions were distributed to the students. The
one is qualitative and the second one is
refers
which
In addition, Pinter (2006) states children
questionnaire is “yes” and “no” question. data
questionnaire,
provided for marking yes or no (Best, 1981).
from questionnaire sheet. The format of the
quantitative
of
administered was the Closed Form. It
quantitative. Qualitative data were obtained
Whereas,
type
may simply misunderstand a question
to
because the language used confuses them.
students’ English score obtained from both
Therefore, since the respondents have not
in pretest and posttest. The vocabulary test
mastered English yet, the questionnaire used
that consisted of 16 multiple-choice items
their first language so that it would be more
that the students had to finish in 70 minutes.
understandable.
The length of time was determined after the
Moreover, there are some procedures
writer conducted a pilot test. Thus, the pilot
should be taken, those are; 1) Reviewing
test was administered to make sure that the
related research and related theory; 2)
test had validity and reliability, and to
Administering pretest; 3) Computing pretest
analyze the items as well as to determine the
result;
length of the test time. 6
4)
Implementing
treatment;
5)
Conducting
posttest;
6)
Distributing
vocabulary mastery of the sixth graders or
questionnaire to the students; 7) Computing
not. Before analyzing the t value, the normal
posttest and questionnaire result; 8) Drawing
distribution test was done. In addition,
general conclusion. In addition, researcher
employing the dependent sample t-test
was conducted the pretest on Thursday,
involves several steps. First, stating the
March 29, 2018. Then, Treatment 1 was
hypothesis.
conducted on Friday, April 13, 2018.
hypotehesis was proposed. H0 : “The
Furthermore,
implementation of TPR method does not
researcher
was
conducted
In
study,
null
improve
Finally,
of
mastery.” Second, calculating the data
questionnaire was conducted on Thursday,
gathered from pretest and posttest. Third,
May 17, 2018.
analyzing the data by using the assistance of
and
distributing
learners’
the
Treatment 2 on Thursday, May 10, 2018. posttest
young
this
vocabulary
The data analysis in this study was done
SPSS 17. Fourth, selecting the level of
by using Microsoft Office Excel and BIM
significance (p) which was 0.05. Fifth,
SPSS 17. The data gathered from the test
determining whether the null hypothesis
instruments;
(H0) is rejected or not. If the t obtained
pretest
and
posttest.
The
t
quantitative data was the result of the pretest
critical, either positive or negative, it means
and posttest. The test was in a form of
that H0 can be rejected. On the other side, if
multiple choices. According to Rodriguez
the tobt
(2005), there are two ways to score multiple
tcrit, it means that H0 cannot be
rejected.
choices test. The first, scoring the test by giving one point in each correct number without making a correction. The second,
4. Results 4.1 The Result of Pretest and Posttest Score
scoring the test by giving a consideration to
Analysis
wrong answer questions and unanswered
Based on the data, TPR improved young
questions. Furthermore, the result of pretest
learners’ vocabulary mastery. It was proven
and posttest was calculated and compared in
by the statistical data that indicated the
order
is
significant difference between pretest and
after
posttest scores. The improvement can be
treatment. The Dependent sample t-test was
seen in the result of mean score and the
employed to analyze the data. The purpose
dependent t-test. The mean score of the
of this test is to determine whether the
students increased. There were 16 multiple
means of two groups’ scores differ to a
questions that were tested. The scores of
statistically significant degree (Kranzler and
pretest and posttest were obtained from
Moursund, 1998). In this study, this analysis
students’ raw scores that were transformed
was used to show whether the use of TPR
into scores scale from 0-100. After gaining
method was effective for improving the
the pretest and posttest scores, the analysis
to
significance
find
out
between
whether before
there and
7
was conducted by the assistance of SPSS 17.
pretest and posttest result.
The table below showed the analysis of Table 4.1 The Result of Pretest and Posttest Score Analysis
Pair 1 pretest posttest
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
Mean
N
Median
Mode
Range
Min
Max
64.2500
32
21.19114
3.74610
69.00
87.50
75.00
12.50
87.50
86.3281
32
19.34684
3.42007
100
100
75.00
25.00
100
Based on the table above, the average of
the value of tcrit (-2.021). It showed that tobt
pretest score was 64.25, the value of mid
was larger than tcrit (-10.357 > -2.021).
scores was 69, and the most frequently
Besides that, the significance value was
occurring score was 87.5. Then, it could be
0.000. It was lower than the level of
seen from the table that the highest score of
significance, which was 0.05. Consequently,
pretest was 87.5 while the lowest score was
H0 was rejected. This implies that there was
12.5 so that the range of the scores was 75.
a significant difference between pretest and
In addition, since the mean of pretest was
posttest scores.
64.25 and standard deviation was 21.19, it
According to both results, H0 can be
could be interprete that many of students’
rejected. In other words, it indicated that
socres were between approximately 43.06
young
and 85.44. Then, the table above showed
improved through TPR method. The result
that the increasing of students’ score from
was supported by a study conducted by
pretest to posttest was quite high. The mean
Castro (2010) that the method made an
value raised 22.08 point from 64.25 to
important difference on students’ vocabulary
86.33. Then, the median and mode became
retention. It might be because that method
100 in posttest. In addition, even though the
was able to make students engaged to the
range of the score remained the same, but
lesson so that they enjoyed the process of
the highest score was 100 and the lowest
learning. Besides that, it is also in line with
score was 25. Both scores increased because
the intention of TPR method that is to make
on the pretest the highest score was 87.5
as much as possible comprehensible input
while the lowest was 12.5. Furthermore, in
for
Table 4.1showed that the mean of pre-ttest
advantages of TPR method might also
scores was lower than the post-test scores
support the research result. With this
(64.25 < 86.3281). In addition, the result of
method, the students first learn words by
the dependent t-test indicated that the
practicing them with a movement or gesture.
students had greater scores on posttest than
Then, the vocabulary is practiced through
pretest. Table 2 showed that the value of tobt
the telling of stories.
was -10.357. This value was compared to 8
the
learners’
learners
vocabulary
(Brune,
mastery
2004).
The
Furthermore, the discover whether there
1.517. therefore, it could be inferred that the
is a significant difference between pretest
data were normally distributed because the
and posttest scores or not, the dependent t-
Skewness values were approximately zero.
test was applied. However, before applying
After doing the normal distribution test,
the dependent t-test, the normal distribution
the dependent t-test was applied. This
test should be employed. It has a purpose to
analysis was done by paired samples t-test of
find out the pattern of data in the distribution
SPSS 17 for Windows. The result of the
(Shier,
analysis was presented as follows.
2004).
To
check
the
normal
distribution, the analysis on Skewness value
Table 4.3 Paired Samples Correlation
was conducted.
N Pair 1
Table 4.2 The Result of Normal Distribution Test N
Statistic
32 32 32
-1.005 -1.517
Pretest Posttest Valid N (listwise)
Correlation
32
.827
The table 4.3 above showed that
Skewness
Statistic
pretest & posttest
there was a strong positive correlation.
Std. Error .414 .414
Hence, it could be said the students who did well on the pretest also did well on the posttest. Furthermore, the result of pretest
Based on the analysis result above, the
and posttest scores analysis and paired
Table 4.2 showed that the value of Skewness
sample t-test can be seen on the following
of pretest was -1.005 and posttest was -
table.
Table 4.4 The Result of Dependent t-test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Pair 1 pretest – posttest
Std. Deviation
-22.07813
12.05840
Std. Error Mean 2.13264
Lower -26.42564
t
Upper -17.73061
df
-10.357
31
Sig. (2tailed) .000
Based on the result above, Table 4.4
scores. Thus, it can be inferred that the use
showed that the value of tobt was -10.357.
of TPR method improved young learners’
This value was compared to the value of tcrit
vocabulary mastery.
(-2.021). It showed that tobt was larger than tcrit
(-10.357
>
-2.021).
Besides,
the
4.2 The Result of Questionnaire
significance values was 0.000. It was lower
The questionnaire was administered to
than the level of significance which was
gather the information about students’
0.05. Consequently, H0 was rejected. This
responses toward the implementation of
implies
TPR method.
that
there
was
a
significant
difference between pretest and posttest
There
were
six closed
questions, which delivered to 32 students. 9
Sig. .000
The
results
of
the
questionnaire
are
presented as follows.
Table 4.2.1 The Results of Questionnaire Number of Question NO
Students’ Name
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
Akbar Ramadhan Akbar Rizky Hidayatuloh Alleta Aurelia Amalia Chandra Asih Andhika Pratama Ditha Permata Elya Melinda G Hilman Riswandi Imas Dini Nurhayati Juliana Muhamad .S. M. Nazwan Daulallah Maya Erina Mona Dewi Paramita Muhamad Fikri Akbar Muhammad Iqbal .S Muhammad Rian Syah Muhammad Triyadi Nashifa Keizya Rifa .R Naufal Malicu Ahmad Nayla Putri Audrylea Novia Intan Nur Rizki Prima Romadhon C.t Putri Jenita Rahma Ramadhan Rahmat Ramadhan Rindu Kasna S. D. Ririn Rinjani Robi Ikhwan Robbani Salsabila Aulia Aprilian Seifa Oktaviane Thirza Candra Virana Trisna Tiara
1
2
3
4
5
6
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y
Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
32
24
28
27
28
32
0
8
4
5
4
0
100%
75%
87,5%
84%
87,5%
100%
0%
25%
12,5%
16%
12,5%
0%
(yes)
(no) P (yes) P (no)
Based on the table 4.2.1 above, the
of students perceived that by TPR method
results of the questionnaire are; 1) All
learning English vocabulary became easier.
students (100%) gave positive answer, they
5) There were 87.5% of students responded
agreed that English was a fun lesson. 2) The
that memorizing the vocabulary was easier
second question showed that 75% of
by using TPR method. 6) All students stated
students were students were interested in
that they were more motivated to learn
learning by using TPR method. 3) There
English by using TPR method.
were 87.5% of students who stated TPR method as a fun method. 4) There were 84% 10
using
Conclusion The aims of this study are purposed to
TPR
method,
6)
memorizing
vocabulary by TPR method was easy.
find out the effectiveness of TPR method in improving
young
learners’
vocabulary
Suggestions
mastery and students’ responses toward the
There are some suggestions that are
use of this method. Based on the result, it
addressed to the English teacher, the
can be concluded that TPR method is
students and the future researchers. Firstly,
effective for improving young learners’
for the English teacher, TPR method is
vocabulary mastery, especially for the sixth
suitable for teacher in primary level to teach
grade. There might be some factors that
English words, but sometimes it will be
affected the success of TPR method in the
boring if the method used repeatedly.
young learners class. First, it might be
Therefore,
because the method was interesting for the
interesting technique such as song, game,
students. This method was a new thing for
story to teach the words. Furthermore, if
them. Normally, their teacher used the
using story teacher should use different
conventional methods such as explanation
voice to make the character alive. Secondly,
and translation. Second, the researcher used
it also suggested the students not only to
interesting media such as colorful pictures
review the new vocabulary they have
and puppet that could attract students’
learned but also to apply it in their daily life
attention with the learning process. Third,
so that they will not forget it easily. Thirdly,
the students’ interest in learning English was
the future researchers are suggested to
also prompted. All students stated that they
conduct the research about TPR method in
liked learning English. In addition, young
different levels. In addition, researchers are
learners would be enthusiastic for learning if
also suggested to conducting try out before
they were interested. Fourth, the learning
pretest to find out the validity and reliability
activities were enjoyable. The combination
of the test instrument, and conducting
between physical activity and storytelling
research in longer period and with a larger
was suitable for them.
sample. Therefore, researchers could gather
Furthermore, the questionnaire results
teacher
should
results that are more detailed.
also supported the research findings. The conclusions of questionnaire results are: 1) students agreed that English was a fun lesson, 2) students liked TPR method, 3) TPR method was a fun method, 4) learning English vocabulary was easier through the implementation of TPR method, 5) students were more motivated when learning by 11
create
an
09467.pdf. Accessed on April 7,
References
2018. Asher, J. (1966). The learning strategy of the
Curtain,
Total Physical Response: A review.
Young
Asher, J. (2010). TPR: After Forty Years,
of
world.com/japan-article.html.
Best, J. W. (1981). Research in Education (4th Edition). Englewood Cliffs:
Total
Physical
K-8.
Response
Language
Teaching.
Discussion
Paper
(Research EDUC480).
Retrieved
Prentice-Hall.
from
http://www.macalester.edu/educatio
(2001).
Teaching
by
nreform/actionresearch/action%20r
Principles, An Interactive Approach
esearch%20-%20beth.pdf.
to Language Pedagogy. Englewood
Accessed on April 13, 2018.
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Dewi, L. A. R. (2010). The Effects of Total
Brune, M. K. (2004). Total Physical
Physical Response – Storytelling to
Response Storytelling: An Analysis Application.
Teach
(Thesis,
Vocabulary
to
Improve
Elementary Students’ Vocabulary
University of Oregon). Retrieved
Achievement. (Magister Scientie).
from
Gross, S. (2007). The Three Steps of TPR-
http://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xm
Storytelling.
lui/bitstream/handle/1794/310/TPR
Khorasgani, A. T. & Khanehgir, M. (2017).
Cameron, L. (2005). Teaching Language to
Teaching
Cambridge:
Young
Cambridge University Press. Carter, R. &
and
(Pilot
Dominican
University
California).
Retrieved
Learners:
Using
to Two
pp. 150-156. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in
Castro, R. (2010). TPRS for Adult in the ESL 1.
Vocabulary
and Keyword Method. Vol.6, No.2,
Language
Teaching. London: Longman Inc.
Classroom
New
Methods Total Physical Response
McCarthy, M. (1998).
Vocabulary
from
cles. Accessed on April 13, 2018.
5). Accessed on March 25, 2018.
Learners.
Retrieved
http://www.susangrosstprs.com/arti
SthesisFINISHED.pdf?sequence=1(
Young
Grades
Storytelling in Secondary Foreign
Accessed on April 1, 2018.
and
Learners,
Decker, B. (2008). Body Language: The Use
http://www.tpr-
D.
(2010).
Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Still A Very Good Idea. Retrieved from
Dahlberg.
the Match: New Languages for
53(1), 79-84.
H.
and
Languages and Children, Making
The Modern Language Journal,
Brown,
H.,
Education (IJERE). Accessed on 13
Study,
April, 2018.
of from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED5 12
Kranzler, G. & Moursund, J. (1998).
ResearchGate
Statistics for the Terrified: Second
Accessed on May 13, 2018.
Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Saville-Troike,
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). Teachniques and
Principles
Teaching.
in
Language
Oxford:
Oxford
Language
Introducing Acquisition.
Press. Scott, W. & Ytreberg, L. H. (2004).
Principles
Teaching English to Children. New
and
York: Longman.
Practices. In Celce-Murcia, M. Teaching
English
as
Shier, R. (2004). Paired t-test. Mathematics
a
Learning Support Center. Accessed
Secoind or Foreign Language, 3rd edition,
(2006).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Morley, J. (2001). Aural Comprehension
(Ed.)
M.
Second
University Press.
Instruction:
Publication.
69-85.
Boston:
on May 12, 2018.
Heinle
Silmi, Rifka. (2017). The Implementation of
Cengage Learning.
Total
Physical
Response
in
M. C. Rodriguez. 2005. Three Options are
Teaching Writing Procedural Text.
Optimal for Multiple-Choice Items:
Thesis. Accessed on May 12, 2018.
A Meta-Analysis of 80 Years of
Retrieved from repository.upi.edu.
Research.
Nunan,
Pinter,
Educational
Suhendan, Er. (2013). Using Total Physical
Measurement: Issues and Practice,
Response
pp.3-13.
Childhood
D.
(2003).
Practical
English
Method Foreign
Teaching
in
Early
Language Environment.
–
Language Teaching. New York:
ScienceDirect
McGeaw Hill.
Behavioral Science. Accessed on
A.
(2006).
Language
Teaching
Young
Learners.
June 9, 2018.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Ray, B. (2004). TPR-Storytelling Advanced Techniques.
Retrieved
from
http://www.TPRstories.com/ijflt. Accessed on May 13, 2018. Richards, J. &
Rogers,
Approaches
and
T.
(2001).
Methods
in
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savic, V. M. 2016. Total Physical Response (TPR) English
Activities to
in
Teaching
Young
Learners. 13
Social
and
