Language acquisition in general is very much a topic in constant flux, like most other aspects of psychology, second language acquisition is even more so up for debate. Popular beliefs and techniques tend to follow fads especially in the teaching of a second language because it is quickly becoming a very profitable industry. Some of these fads range from the mild to the eccentric, such a Total Physical Response, or TPR.
Total physical response operates in a similar way to that which a first language is approached in childhood. Listening, watching, and following cues are used to figure out and learn the words of a new language and how they are used. TPR relies heavily on tactile learning and differs from other basic classroom settings by not requiring student production until the student feels confident enough to participate. This style of teaching has been shown to be a great jump start into a language, but can never hope to achieve anything close to proficiency. TPR is an entirely auditory way of teaching which will certainly create deficits in both writing and pronunciation later in second language development.
1972 Promotional Video
Most linguists have now abandoned this method of second language teaching, but there are still some supporters. Why do you think this concept has survived so long? Are there positive attributes to this method of teaching, and what are the negatives?
Dr. Asher has since taken his rather unorthadox method of teaching language into other subjects, including math and science. While it can be agreed TPR is a relatively insane idea even in regards to language teaching, how is at all applicable to math and sciences? Check out the website to read testimonials and applicable articles. (please keep in mind the source of the material) As we become an increasingly global society where several languages are required, and the desire to learn a second or third language increases, we are sure to see more and more of these questionable theories hitting the marketplace.