The Accelerated Integrative Method— AIM– is a comprehensible-input second-languages method which was developed by Wendy Maxwell in Canada. I havn’t used AIM (but have posted some comments about it from practitioners here). AIM is better than any standard text: they use stories, lots of repeated (and sheltered) vocab, etc, which are practices in line with what we know about what the brain needs to acquire languages.
AIM makes some claims about TPRS here, claims which I don’t think are always accurate. Mainly I want to clarify TPRS (as I understand it). I’ll quote AIM’s claims about TPRS and then clarify each in turn. What is in the text boxes is all AIM’s words.
Claim:
| AIM | TPRS |
| Students speak primarily in sentences. | Students respond primarily with one-word responses. |
Reality: in TPRS, students say whatever they are developmentally ready to say. In a beginner class, students’ initial output will be one-word and yes/no responses to questions. As input builds mental representation of language, their output grows longer and more complex. TPRS is built on research, which shows that forcing output beyond what students are developmentally ready for does nothing for acquisition and makes many students uncomfortable.
Claim:
| AIM
The teacher uses a variety of strategies when students don’t understand. |
TPRS
Translation is the primary method used when students don’t understand. |
Reality: a TPRS practitioner will establish meaning using direct translation, and use translation to clarify, but will also use gestures, props, actors etc to clarify what is happening. What TPRS does not do: make students guess (or, in edubabble, “use metacognitive strategies to decode meaning”). Why? Because there is no substantiation in research that language acquisition gets easier and/or speeds up when people have to guess at meaning, and because how effective decoding strategies are depends on how much the learner already knows (and on the language being taught– good luck using cognates and “sounding out” when acquiring Mandarin). While babies and first language learners must guess, they have unlimited time to do so, while a classroom teacher has about 100 hrs/year max.
Claim:
| AIM
Offers a full online teacher training and certification program. |
TPRS
Offers webinars online. |
Reality: both AIM and TPRS offer live training, and both offer online training, DVDs, etc.
Claim:
| AIM
Supported by a variety of research. (See attached) |
TPRS
Based on research of comprehensible input (CI) by Krashen. |
Reality: the research into language acquisition supporting what TPRS does has been done by Krashen, Bill VanPatten, Ashley Hastings, Wynne Wong, James Asher, Beniko Mason and many others. See this for a summary. A.I.M. is built around most of the same ideas.
There is some good data from the Netherlands which suggests that A.I.M. works somewhat better than a traditional “skill-buuilding” approach. However, most of what is on the research portion of their page does not qualify as good science: small sample sizes, lack of control groups, etc, mean that AIM claims must be taken with a grain of salt.
Claim:
| AIM
Yes/no questions are rarely used. The teacher focuses on total and partial questions with complete sentence answers. |
TPRS Questioning is done by circling (asking the same question in many ways) that includes yes/no questions, QT and QP as well as PQA (personalized questions and answers). Answers are usually one word. PQA = teacher talk |
Reality:
- PQA is not teacher talk. It is teacher-initiated and teacher guided, because the teacher is the one who knows the target language.
- Answers are whatever the student is developmentally ready for. For beginners, this means one-word and/or y/n answers. Later, output will become more complex and longer. We know from research that asking people to output beyond what they can do– eg complete sentences for beginners– is not really language use; it is memorised performance.
- Not all questioning is circling. In reality, TPRS practitioners circle some new vocabulary, but prefer to use parallel characters (or students) for vocab repetition rather than focusing on questioning one sentence (though one-sentence focus is appropriate at times).
Claim:
|
AIM The students and teacher write very long, detailed stories together, which are generally based on the play being studied. This happens twice as a whole class activity and twice as a partner activity per 50 hours of instruction. The play, vocabulary and language manipulation activities/creative writing are systematically integrated for success, predictability |
TPRS
The student and teacher build a series of short stories (including 3 new words or phrases) called PMS (personalized mini-situation) by having the teacher “ask” the story. This oral activity happens frequently. Written exercises become more of a focus in the 3rd and 4th year. |
Reality: TPRS includes writing right from the get-go. However, writing (and speech) in TPRS are indicators, not causes, of acquisition. In TPRS, students begin simple re-writes of stories after first co-creating one, and then reading various versions of it.
TPRS uses minimally-targeted (focused or chosen) vocabulary to build stories. Aside from a few basic verbs, nouns etc, the stories go more or less in the direction that students want them to.
TPRS stories vary in length, generally getting longer as students acquire more L2. Student written output (at the end of say Level 1) will be 600-1,000 words in one hour.
Claim:
| AIM
Believe in a balanced literacy approach. |
TPRS High emphasis on the importance of reading (every second day) for language development. Students read early on. Students translate all readings out loud in a whole-class setting |
Reality:
- I have no idea what a “balanced literacy approach” is.
- No, TPRS practitioners don’t necessarily translate all readings out loud, OR in a whole class setting. Sometimes…but we do partner translation, story illustration (comics), free voluntary reading, etc as well.
Claim:
| AIM
The number of structures per lesson varies significantly. |
TPRS
In a typical lesson, the teacher introduces and focuses on three target language structures. |
Reality:
There is no pre-set number of structures in TPRS. An initial story will use a lot (because you need the “super 7” verbs to start storyasking with beginners). Later ones will use more, or fewer.
Claim:
| AIM
All words and grammatical structures are associated with a gesture. The gestures are standardized. Gestures accelerate comprehension – no need to translate – the gestures allow the teacher to teach words as each represents clearly [sic] the meaning |
TPRS
Gestures are sometimes used in conjunction with new vocabulary, however teacher and/or students can create his/her own gestures. Gestures or a physical response (TPR) from the body (limits to imperative form) and are used mostly with younger students (under Gr. 5) when needed only. |
Reality:
- In TPRS, TPR is not limited to third-person imperative. As a matter of fact, Ray and Seely (2015) advocate using third-person singular (and other) forms when doing TPR.
- TPR is suggested for younger learners, but also works well (albeit with limited effectiveness) for older learners.
Claim:
TPRS has a “Five-day lesson plan which includes only three activities: PMS or mini-story, reading the extension, timed free writing and reading”
Reality: umm…TPRS practitioners also do any of the following activities:
- Movietalk
- novel reading
- translation (in various formats)
- la persona especial
- Picturetalk
- reading/listening to developmentally appropriate cultural texts and/or songs
- other games, such as Mafia, paper airplane translation, running dictation, etc.
Claim:
| AIM
Teachers are encouraged to “flood” the student with vocabulary in the target language. |
TPRS
Teachers are encouraged to limit the amount of vocabulary introduced at one time. |
Reality: This is true. Why do TPRS practitioners carefully restrict vocabulary? Because of the “bandwidth” issue, or what Bill VanPatten calls “working memory constraints.” Basically, the less variety of info the brain has to process, the more in-depth the processing of each item (and the sounds, grammar “rules,” etc with which it is implicitly associated) can be. If we can recycle a limited vocab set over and over, the vocab will be easy to pick up. In addition, when we have limited vocab– and so are not constantly guessing at/trying to recall meaning, because the working mind can have about 7 items in its awareness at a time– our brain can devote mental energy to soaking up grammar, pronunciation and other properties.
In TPRS, we “practice” language– by processing input– much like musicians practice pieces they are learning: we go over limited parts of tunes/songs to really nail them, rather than trying to soak up an entire piece in one go.
Claim:
| AIM
Provides everything for the teacher in terms of outlining in detail and with scripted teacher talk for teachers to model what they might say during whole-class activities.
|
TPRS The teacher asks many questions using the new vocabulary (5-6 questions) being taught. These questions are created ‘on the spot’. No teacher’s guide is provided since questions depend on student answers and reactions. A PMS (personalized mini-situation) is created by the teacher with the help of students, but all of this depends highly on teacher’s knowledge of the L2. |
Reality: this is one of the alleged strengths (and to my mind) weaknesses of AIM. The AIM curriculum is massively structured, which means that– provided they know the routines– any teacher can, in theory, start AIM with very little planning. However, the rigid structure– this is what your play will be, these are your questions and answers– will inhibit personalisation possibilities, and also raises the question, what if the students do not find the story interesting?
Claim:
| AIM
All students participate by speaking chorally, gesturing or reading the gestures. There is never silence in an AIM classroom – all students speak 30 minutes of a 30 minute class
|
TPRS
One or a few students are responding to commands at once. The teacher does most of the speaking. Students only start producing the L2 when enough comprehensible input has been provided (called the silent period – several hours to several weeks) |
Reality:
- Nobody at AIM has ever explained why it is necessary for students to speak. We know from research that input, not output, drives acquisition, and that forced output is not language, but what VanPatten calls “language-like behavior” which does not develop acquisition.
- TPRS– outside of during bursts of TPR– does not use “commands.”
- Students produce developmentally-appropriate L2 from Day 1. Initially, this will be y/n and then then one-word answers, and later sentences.
Claim:
| AIM
Syntax and grammar are visualized, produced and embedded kinesthetically in this multi-modal approach AIM’s three-stage inductive grammar approach ensures a Natural Approach (Krashen) to the understanding of grammar |
TPRS
Teacher uses translation to clarify grammar and structures. They use pop-up grammar and one-second grammar explanations. For example, during the translation of a reading it is used every 20 second or so and always in the L1. |
Reality: there is no need to “visualize” syntax or grammar. Since acquisition of L1 (and L2, L3 etc) follow the same processes, and since nobody “teaches” their own kids grammar, vocab etc, it is not clear why one must “visualize” syntax. If one understands the input, the brain will build mental representation of grammar. This is not a problem in AIM, however– there is nothing wrong with grammar visuals– but they are unnecessary.
TPRS uses direct translation in order to waste as little time as possible and to stay in L2 as much as possible.
Claim:
| AIM
Specific language manipulation activities to scaffold the ability for language use |
TPRS
Does not contain specific language manipulation activities to scaffold the ability for language use |
Reality:
- “Manipulation” of language is not necessary to acquire it. As Bill VanPatten notes, processing of comprehensible input alone “appears to be sufficient” to develop mental representation of L2. In other words, reading and listening to what students understand is all they need to acquire the language.
- TPRS does scaffold. This fancy word means “make things progressively more complex while keeping them comprehensible.” TPRS practitioners go sentence-at-a-time with narration, use embedded readings, recycle previous vocab, do comprehension checks, etc.
Reality:
| AIM
Cooperative learning is emphasized – all written language skills are developed orally in conjunction/discussion/interaction with a partner |
TPRS
Students mostly work individually when it comes to written activities and frequently assigned as homework. Oral work is mostly presented as a whole-class activity |
Reality: true. Why does TPRS avoid “partner” or “communicative pair” activities?
- Learners inevitably produce junky output, which becomes junky input for other learners. If we accquire language through input, the purpose of generating bad output and having that bad output become bad input is, well, something I have not heard explained by AIM.
- Learners need only comprehensible input to acquire a language. If they want to talk, great…but they don’t have to talk, and the lack of forced output means many kids are more comfortable in class.
Claim:
| AIM
Carefully sequenced partner/group activities
|
TPRS
Various random activities for ‘partner vocabulary practice’
|
Reality:
TPRS does not require or suggest that teachers to do “partner vocabulary practice.” What “vocabulary practice” would be is not mentioned. I am not sure where AIM got this idea.
Claim:
| AIM
Each activity of one type lasts a maximum of ten minutes to ensure the highest level of focus and learning potential
|
TPRS
One mini-story/PMS is taught per 50-minute daily class
|
Reality:
- There is no defined max/min length for any TPRS story. Blaine Ray has famously told of spending four months on one story. Sometimes a story doesn’t work, so a TPRS practitioner ends it quickly and moves on to other activities. Some TPRS practitioners advocate what Mike Peto and Ben Slavic have called “quick takeoffs and landings,” i.e. stories that last 25-40 min.
- How long an activity in a TPRS class lasts depends on how interesting the students find it.
- A TPRS class is not just story-asking. TPRS practitioners also do Movietalk, Picturetalk, reading, persona especial, C.I. games, translation, skits, etc.
Claim:
| AIM
Students visualize every single word as the teacher gestures delaying showing the written word. |
TPRS
Students visualize the written word/translated written word very early on… |
Reality: there is no requirement/suggestion that students in a TPRS class “visualize” the written word. A TPRS practitioner will write whatever words are used (with translation) on board. This is to help “anchor” and clarify the meaning of words, as we know that comprehensible– and not ambiguous– input is what leads to acquisition.
Anyway, that’s what AIM claims and what (my understanding of) TPRS actually is. Be good to hear from AIM what they think, or if they can clarify. Also be nice to hear from TPRS practitioners re: what they think.
t.p.r.s. q&a 