Discussion
Limitations of this study.
Although this study adds to the growing body of research that supports comprehensible input-based methods, there are limitations to this study. First, this study consisted of rather small sample sizes, only two comparison groups, one with 29 students and one with 30 students. This small sample size may not be representative enough of the general population. The homogeneity within the sample is a limitation. This study only compared middle school students in a suburban school district in northeast Ohio. Second, this study did not measure student performance in terms of oral output. Although previous studies (Dziedzic, 2012; Spangler, 2009; Watson, 2009) provide evidence that students in a TPRS classroom outperform students in traditional classrooms on measures of output, this study did not examine this. While this study provides evidence that students in a TPRS classroom outperform their peers on assessments of vocabulary, grammar and reading and listening comprehension; it does not provide any evidence on measures of output.
Implications for future research
As stated prior, the small sample size in this study is a limitation. While this study may help some teachers with making a decision about what type of teaching methodology to use in their classroom, there may be teachers in different types of school districts who would be skeptical. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study using larger sample sizes. The National Spanish Exam is a reliable, standardized assessment. If a study were to be done that included more students from various school settings, and preferably with multiple teachers, it could provide more insights on the topic of comparing teaching methods.
This study also had a limited number of students with disabilities. We need carefully designed research studies that would examine the effects of comprehensible input-based teaching methods on the performance of students with disabilities. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in student performance when comparing comprehensible input-based methods with more traditional, output-based methods on a nationally standardized exam. Results of the study align with previous studies that show that comprehensible input-based teaching methods are more effective in the second language classroom. The results of the study showed statistically significant differences in the performance of the two groups on the National Spanish Exam. As Krashen (2004) states, grammatical competence and vocabulary knowledge are the result of listening and reading. This study supports this statement by showing that the group that focused on comprehensible input performed significantly better on assessments of vocabulary and grammar. As more research is conducted, comparing various teaching methods, we will get closer to finding the most effective ways to facilitate second language acquisition.
References Adair-Hauck, B. & Donato, R. (2002). The PACE model: A story-based approach to meaning and form for standards-based language learning. The French Review, 76 (2), 265-27.
Adams, S. (2010, December 15). Can’t learn a foreign language? not true, say scientists. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8200956/Cant-learn-a-foreign-language-Not-true-say-scientists.html
Annenberg. (n.d.). Teaching foreign languages k-12 glossary. In Annenberg Learner. Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/libraries/tfl/key_terms.html
Canion, M. (2012). Tumba. Chandler, AZ: TPRS Publishing
Castro, M. (1997). The future of spanish in the united states. Language policy website & emporium, Retrieved from http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/Castro1.htm Davidheiser, J. (2002). Classroom approaches to communication: Teaching German with TPRS. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 35(1), 25-35.
Davies, M. (2006). A frequency dictionary of Spanish: Core vocabulary for learners. New York and London: Routledge.
Dziedzic, J. (2012). A comparison of TPRS and traditional instruction, both with SSR. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(2), 4-7.
Gaab, C. (2011). Esperanza. Chandler, AZ: TPRS Publishing
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2010). Applying educational research. (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2013). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. (8th ed.). Independence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing.
Gross, S. (2007). The 3 steps of TPR storytelling . Retrieved from http://susangrosstprs.com/articles/THREESTEPS.pdf
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York:Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon/Alemany.
Krashen, S.D. (2004). Why support a delayed-gratification approach to language education? The Language Teacher, 28(7)
Krashen, S.D. (2013). Foreign language education: The easy way. (3rd ed.). Burlingame, CA: Language Education Associates.
Mason, B. (2011). Impressive gains on the TOEIC after one year of comprehensible input, with no output or grammar study. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.tprstories.com/ijflt/articles-winter-2011/Mason_Tanaka_IJFLT_11-11.pdf
Mason, B. (2013). Substantial gains in listening and reading ability in English as a second language from voluntary listening and reading in a 75 year old students. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1).
Mason, B. and Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary instruction worthwhile? RECL Journal, 35(2), 179-185.
Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press
Miller, M. (2009). Charo y Lee: Level 1 Teacher’s Book. Colorado Springs, CO
Ponniah, R. J. (2007). A note on the application of rules of grammar. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 3 (2), 36-37.
Ponniah, R.J. (2007). Memorization: A constraint for integrating thinking skills into Indian ESL classrooms. Language in India. 7 (7), 1-5.
Ponniah, R. J. (2008). Acquisition of grammar through comprehensible input versus explicit instruction. Iranian Journal of Language studies. 2 (2), 249-255.
Ponniah, R. J. (2009) What do we need to acquire a second language? Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics. 1(3), 112-121.
Ponniah, R. J. (2009). The role of grammar: An insight into the skill-building and the output hypotheses. Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics. 1(5), 275-285.
Ray, B. (1999). Pobre Ana. Berkely, CA: Command Performance Language Institute
Ray, B. (2001). Patricia va a California. Berkely, CA: Command Performance Language Institute
Ray, B., & C. Seely. (2012). Fluency through TPR storytelling. 6th ed. Berkeley: Command Performance Language Institute
Richards, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press
Roberts, C. (2013, March). In Leann Wilcoxen (Chair). Staying in the target language: 90%. Presentation delivered at the Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Central states conference on the teaching of foreign languages, Columbus, OH.
Rodrigo, V., Krashen, S., & Gribbons, B. (2004). The effectiveness of two comprehensible-input approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 53-60.
Shrum, J. and Glisan, E. (2005). Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Spangler, D. (2009). Effects of two foreign language methodologies, communicative language teaching and teaching proficiency through reading and storytelling, on beginning-level students’ achievement, fluency, and anxiety. (Doctoral dissertation), Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT). (305068244)Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305068244 VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45-57.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.
VanPatten, B., Farmer J., & Clardy, C. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: a response to Keating and Farley. Hispania, 92 (1). 116-126
Varquez, K. (2009). Traditional and TPR storytelling in the beginning high school Spanish classroom. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5 (1), pp. 2-11
Watson, B. (2009). A comparison of TPRS and traditional foreign language instruction at the high school level. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5 (1), 21-24