I feel like there is some confusion about the effectiveness of stories. There has been a lot of talk, especially over the past two years, about how, as long as we just do comprehensible input in any form, we are doing our jobs. And that is true. In fact, it is a point I have made often here lately, and it is a point that Diana emphasizes to every WL teacher in Denver Public Schools.
However, let’s not overlook the fact that Blaine’s three steps are in point of fact THE most effective way to deliver comprehensible input to a class. The asking of a story is THE best way to get student buy-in to comprehensible input. It’s just better, in the way Coca Cola is seen by many as superior to other drinks, which is just soda. I always like to say that Blaine invented the formula for Coke for language teachers.
When I use a good script and I see what it really can do in class, I am struck with the power it brings. Why? Mainly because three structures show up repeatedly in three locations and so great reps are guaranteed, unlike in PQA, and because it is all funny because the students are making it funny.
Moreover, it is easier to follow a script. There are teachers who feel that just talking to the kids is easiest and best, but for me stories are easiest and best. In stories we don’t have to work as hard as we do when we do PQA. This is because when we exhaust one sentence in the script, having gotten all the circling we can out of it, we simply need to go mechanically on to the next sentence.
Here is a link to part of the text of TPRS in a Year! (pp. 124-125), which supports some of the points made above: