What is TPRS 2.0?

 I’ve seen references to this newer version of TPRS (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling) from US teachers and was curious to find out more. I asked ChatGPT, which gave me the description below. Given its main sources, I would think the description makes sense, though no doubt TPRS-users would differ in their interpretations. After sharing the AI description, I’ll add a few thoughts about TPRS (both versions). I risk treading on one or two toes!

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

TPRS 2.0 is an updated version of Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS), developed and promoted by Blaine Ray and colleagues. Unlike the original TPRS, which emphasized comprehensible input through teacher-led storytelling and reading, TPRS 2.0 deliberately builds in more opportunities for learners to produce language, while still keeping input at the centre of the approach. 

The main innovations are:

• A greater focus on “manageable chunks”. Instead of expecting students to retell long stories, they work with very short, high-frequency chunks of language until they can use them fluently.
• Structured oral output. Students repeatedly retell the same content from different perspectives (first person, third person, dialogue, etc.), gradually increasing fluency.
• A four-step cycle that moves learners from comprehension to increasingly independent production.
• A balance of input and output. Whereas traditional TPRS was often criticised for relying almost entirely on input, TPRS 2.0 argues that carefully scaffolded speaking should begin much earlier. 

A typical lesson

A lesson might proceed like this:

1. The teacher introduces just one or two useful phrases in a highly comprehensible way.
2. The class co-constructs a short, often humorous story using those phrases.
3. Students dramatise or retell tiny sections of the story.
4. They retell it again from another viewpoint.
5. Finally, they read the story and perhaps write or discuss it.

The emphasis is on mastering a small amount of language extremely well before adding more.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

So what are my general thoughts about TPRS, having reflected on it for a few years and having incorporated occasional story co-construction (“story asking” and “picture talk”) in my own teaching?

Advantages

- The emphasis on comprehensible input and organic interaction with it.

- The fun element of story creation.

- Giving students some autonomy in the lesson content.

- It prioritises content over grammar, even if grammar “pop-ups” can happen

- The ability to combine the four skills of listening, reading, speaking and writing.

Concerns - ones frequently voiced by others too

- The lesson content is trivial - stories are fun and may even impart cultural knowledge, but the risk is that more serious content is neglected. Some students may be demotivated if they agree the content is unserious.

- The lack of alignment with syllabus content, for example GCSE. While I’ve always argued there is more freedom than teachers imagine to diverge from syllabus and textbook topics, to go “full TPRS” would be inadvisable for many teachers.

- The rather doctrinaire rejection of more mechanical exercises and activities which may still help many students become more proficient. I am thinking of question-answer, substitution and transformation drills. (TPRS has always supported “circling” - question-answer around chosen constructions - but not necessarily with the aim of automatising constructions.)

- The apparent teacher-led nature of the approach - but there may be much more room for pair/group work than I am aware of.

- The risk with a teacher-led CI approach that some students, despite the teacher’s best efforts, including some translation, just don’t follow. “Bilingual” approaches, for example EPI, where meaning is totally transparent offer the advantage of total transparency of meaning. Everything is understood.The language to be learned (and acquired!) is clearly laid out in advance.

- In more general terms, the TPRS rejection of skill acquisition as a model for language learning. I too am aware of its serious limitations, but don’t feel able to reject the possibility that automatisation happens. With my own, generally high-achieving students I think I saw it happening.

In sum, TPRS 2.0 seems like a positive development from the original TPRS since it gives a greater priority to output and interaction, but its over-emphasis on story asking, picture talk, movie talk and the like, concerns me since more serious textual content may be neglected. Context place a huge role here, and TPRS may make more sense in some settings than others. I expect its implementation varies a lot.  I do think that the average UK teacher could make more use of TPRS techniques and principles.TPRS and CI approaches are often advocated as an alternative to highly grammar-focused PPP methods, which is fine, but there are other ways to avoid too much grammar and rote learning of vocabulary.