(tpr) method in teaching english vocabulary to young

IMPLEMENTING TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE (TPR) METHOD IN TEACHING ENGLISH VOCABULARY TO YOUNG LEARNERS Anggraini, Dwi Wahyuni1, and Purnawarman, Pupung2 Department of English Education, Indonesia University of Education [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT This prime focus of this study is implementing Total Physical Response (TPR) method in teaching English vocabulary to young learners. The study was aimed to investigate the implementation of TPR method in improving students’ vocabulary mastery and the students’ responses toward the implementation of TPR method in teaching English vocabulary. Quantitative research method is used to analyse the data in this study. This study used one group pre-test post-test design with two treatment meetings. The instrument used in this study was writing vocabulary tests (pre-test and post-test). This study also used questionnaire techniques as instrument to describe students’ responses toward this technique. The participants in this study were one class consisting of 32 students in the sixth grade of an Elementary School in Bandung. The result of pre-test and post-test were analyzed by dependent t-test and the questionnaire was analyzed using formula. All the data were analyzed to explore how TPR method conducted in the classroom. The result of this study showed that Total Physical Response method gave significant influence to improve students’ vocabulary mastery and students’ learning motivation. TPR method helped the students in recalling the words. Based on the findings, it is recommended that Total Physical Response is able to used in teaching English vocabulary, particularly in helping the students to recall the words quickly. Keywords: Total Physical Response, teaching vocabulary, young learners.

1. Introduction It has been known vvocabulary plays an

teachers in elementary school do not give

important

learning

mastery because teaching vocabulary has

especially to young learners. Carter and Mc.

been included in teaching reading (Dewi,

Carthy (1998) state that vocabulary is the

2010).

heart of language teaching and learning.

observation

Without vocabulary mastery, learning a

preferred to use translating and memorizing

language especially English will become a

words in order to the students felt bored

great

during English lesson.

role

difficulty

in

for

language

young

much attention to their students’ vocabulary

learners.

Furthermore, Cameron (2005) believes that

Besides, by

Considering

based researcher

those

on the

issues,

personal teacher

learning

building the useful vocabulary especially at

vocabulary can be done through various

elementary level is central to the learning of

methods. This study investigates one of the

a foreign language because the process of

language teaching methods named TPR

learning words changes in nature as it

(Total Physical Response) method. TPR is a

continues. However,

language teaching method built around the

many of English 1

coordination of speech and action; it

Furthermore, Suhendan (2013) in his study

attempts to teach language through physical

reveals that process of learning language by

(motor) activity (Asher 20010; Curtain and

using TPR become interesting and easy for

Dahlberg, 2010; Larsen-Freeman, 2004;

the students because the student acted out

Morley 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2002).

the lists of new vocabulary into physical

This method is considered to be more

movement.

effective and enjoyable compared to the

investigated the implementation of Total

conventional method that still could be

Physical Response in teaching writing of

found. Young learners could experience the

procedural text. This study was implemented

interesting learning process because they are

in one of Junior High Schools in Bandung.

physically engage (Brown, 2001). Pinter

The result of the study showed that the

(2006) stated that the activities in TPR will

implementation of Total Physical Response

ensure that young learners can hear the new

used by the students’ helped them to recall

vocabulary in a meaningful context and

the vocabularies and the steps of their

respond nonverbally first. Besides, since

activities. Furthermore, the students also

they show their preference to proceed input

could understand the generic structure of

in kinesthetic and tactile modalities, this

procedure text structurally.

Besides,

Silmi

(2017)

method can be seen as one of the best

From the studies mentioned above, many

methods for teaching vocabulary to young

studies on the implementation of Total

learners (Saville-Troike, 2006).

Physical Response (TPR) showed positive

Some previous studies have investigated

result, but only few study investigates the

the effects of the TPR method and other

implementation of Total Physical Response

techniques in teaching English. Decker

in

(2008) investigated the effectiveness of

School. Hence, the researcher tried to

Total Physical Response in storytelling in

conduct the similar research involving the

secondary foreign language teaching. The

participants of the sixth grade of Elementary

study was conducted in one of secondary

School. In this regard, this study aims to find

school in Spanyol and the participants

out: (1) The effectiveness of implementing

consisted of 25 students. The findings of this

Total Physical Response (TPR) in improving

study

student’s vocabulary mastery. (2) The

showed

that

the

use

of

TPR

teaching

vocabulary

student’s

students

teaching by using Total Physical Response

increase.

Moreover,

a

toward

Elementary

storytelling, the level of engagement of the could

responses

in

vocabulary

research by Castro (2010) reveals that TPR

(TPR). The hypothesis of this study were:

using storytelling could make a significant

H0: There is no improvement of the

difference

on

students’

memory.

The

students’ vocabulary mastery after being

participants of this research consisted of 25

taught by using Total Physical Response

students in the ESL classroom for adults.

(TPR) method. 2

H1: There is an improvement of the

Second, if adolescent or adults put

students’ vocabulary mastery after being

themselves as language learners; young

taught by using Total Physical Response

learners

(TPR) method.

themselves as language learners (Pinter,

have

lower

awareness

about

2006). Adolescents or adults would realize when they make mistake and would try to

2. Literature Review 2.1 The Characteristics of Young Learners

resolve it. On the other side, young learners

Young learners are not the same as

still need guidance from teacher to correct

adolscents or adults. In learning foreign

their mistake.

language, young learners have different

Third, they are more concerned abotu

characteristics from them. If adolescents or

themselves. Hence, they will be more

adults are able to understand the language

curious if the lesson uses them as the main

systme such as grammar, young learners still

topic. Fourth, they need more attention and

have confusion in thinking about it (Pinter,

guidance from the teacher since they have

2006).

limited knowledge about the world. In

The condition happens because young

addition, they are enthusiastic in learning

learners have some special characteristics.

and curious about the world around them

First, as mentioned before, they cannot

(Harmer, 2001). Therefore, teacher should

analyze language yet because they are not

be patient when they keep questioning about

ready for thinking about the language

anything. Last, they are easy to get bored

system (Pinter, 2006). It is difficult for them

(Harmer,

to understand abstract concepts such as

interested with fantasy, imagination, and

grammar (Harmer, 2001). However, they

physical movement (Pinter, 2006). Thus,

may be able to understand message or

providing activities which include those

meaning of words fom meaningful contexts.

things can make young learners enjoy the

It implies that we cannot teach them the

process of learning.

2001).

However,

they

are

language system like grammar straightly.

Furthermore, Scott and Ytreberg (2004)

Teachers can use story or song as the

argue that young learners are positive and

teaching teachnique. In the story or song, the

enthusiastic in learning. When the teacher

teachers put sentences which use certain

corrects their mistakes, they believe in the

structure and repeat it as many as possible.

correction. Thus, the teacher should not give

Through this way, young learners can learn

them wrong example or correction because

the structure indirectly. Moreover, Harmer

if they memorize that, it will be worst.

(2001) argues that young learners often learn

Besides, young learners also rely on the

indirectly than directly. They learn from

spoken word and physical world to convey

everything around them than focusing on

and understand the meaning (Scott and

what they are being taught (Harmer, 2001).

Ytreberg, 2004). In line with Scott and 3

Ytreberg, Piaget states that young learners

context (Pinter, 2006). Hence, arranging

start at exploring words physically and grasp

stress free activity such as storytelling can

things or called as the sensori motor stage

make young learners more involved with the

before

learning

finally

achieving

the

formal

process

because

they

enjoy

operational stage where abstraction becomes

something which relates to fantasy or

increasingly possible (Harmer, 2001). They

imagination (Pinter, 2006). Besides, the

develop their knowledge when physically

teacher should provide physical activities in

interacting since they learn through their

order

individual interaction and exploration.

understanding the meaning of words.

to

help

young

learners

in

All characteristics above show that young learners are so unique. They need

2.3 Total Physical Response

special treatment from teachers. Therefore,

Total Physical Response (TPR) is a

the teachers of young learners should be

language teaching method based on the

careful when arranging the lesson plan. They

coordination of speech and action. It is

should choose the right approach for

developed by James Asher, a professor of

teaching their students.

psychology

at

San

Jose

University,

California (Asher, 1966). He believes that 2.2 Teaching Vocabulary to Young Learners

young learners respond physically first

Building up the skill and knowledge is

before starting to produce verbal responses

started from learning vocabulary. In recent

(Khorasgani and Khanehgir, 2017). For that

years, since vocabulary is an important part

reason, TPR has a goal to teach language

of language learning, it becomes the main

through physical or motor activity.

stage

in

(Cameron,

teaching 2005;

foreign Nunan,

language

Furthermore,

TPR

is

continous

2003).

application of the scaffolding strategy.

Furthermore, the process of learning of

Young learners learn effectively through

words changes in nature as it continues

scaffolding by the adults. In TPR lesson,

(Cameron, 2005). For that reason, it is

teacher guides the learning of a new word by

believed that the earlier vocabulary is

demonstrating its meaning and then with

learned, the best result will it be.

drawing assistance when it is no longer

In teaching vocabulary to young learners,

needed

(Savic,

2016).

Therefore,

the

in order to get the maximum result, teachers

comprehensible input could be gained by the

should provide them with fun activities. If

students through TPR.

adults can guess the meaning of new words

In

addition,

the

combination

of

and patterns by using their knowledge,

vocabulary with physical action could give

young learners tend to pick up new words

good effect on students’ memory since they

when they are having fun. They also only

have

could work out message fom meaningful

performing appropriate action (Carter and 4

to

fulfill

the

learning

task by

McCarthy, 1998). Besides, the involvement

the only way to participate in the lesson

of physical activity in this method could

is by following the rules.

reduce the learners’ stress and create god

 Reacting to student’s responses; this

mood which will result in good achievement

technique has an aim to increase

in learning.

students’ interest and speaking fluency. In short, along the lesson using TPR,

2.3.1 How to Use Total Physical Response

teacher should give interesting activity,

(TPR)

show enthusiasm, and provide support to the

In teaching vocabulary by using TPR,

students. Hence, the goal of the lesson could

there are some steps that could be done by

be achieved successfully.

the teacher. The following are the steps, 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study applied one group pretest-

which are proposed by Gross (2007), there are: 1. Write the meaning of the new word in

posttest design of pre-experimental research.

the board and use gesture to make it

The effects of the treatment are judged by

clearer.

the difference between the pretest and

2. Ask question using new words. For

posttest score. Therefore, this study does not

example, if the word is noun, ask

provide comparison with a control group

whether students like it or not. If the

(Best, 1981). Here is the illustration of one

word is verb, ask whether students do it

group pretest-posttest design as proposed by

or not.

Best (1981).

3. Invite reactions by students. 4. Make sure that students understand

O1

X

O2

everything. At the step, teachers have to show their

Where:

interest and enthusiasm in order to make

O1 : Pretest

students interested in the lesson. Besides, the

X : Treatment

teacher should look for students’ confusion

O2 : Posttest

and make it clear by using gesture.

There were several reasons for choosing

Besides the above activities, there are

one group protest-posttest design to be

some advanced techniques of using TPR

employed in this study. This design was

which were developed through practice by

chosen since it was not feasible to apply true

professional TPR teachers (Ray, 2004). The

experimental design. The sample of the

techniques are:

study was chosen purposively. Thus, one

 Playing the games; this technique could

group pretest-posttest design was chosen.

increase students’ level of concern since

Besides, it was impossible to involve control group in the study because of the limitation 5

of time and cost that were also became the

3.4 Data Collecting Procedure and Analysis The data collection was gathered by test

consideration.

instruments (pre-test and post-test) and 3.2 Population and Sample The population of this study was the

questionnaire. The pre-test has a goal to

sixth grade students of an elementary school

test score was taken before the treatment.

in Bandung. One class of the population was

Meanwhile, post-test was administered after

purposively chosen to be the sample.

the treatment was done. It was conducted in

According to Best (1981), a small part of a

order to find out the significance of students’

population selected for observation and

vocabulary mastery after the treatment was

analysis is called as a sample. In this study,

given. Furthermore, questionnaire may serve

the sample involved 32 students, 15 male

as the most appropriate and useful data

students and 17 female students. The

gathering device in research project. It could

consideration for choosing the sample is

save time and expense because of the

based on some characteristics of the

availability of a number of respondents in

students. First, the students learn English as

one place. Moreover, it also provides a high

the local content. Second, they are native

proportion

Indonesians. Third, they used to learn

respondents. The use of questionnaire in this

English by using conventional method such

study was intended to find out the students’

as memorization.

responses towards the implementation of

measure students’ initial mastery. The pre-

of

usable

responses

from

TPR method in their class where seven 3.3 Research Instrument There are two collected data. The first

questions were distributed to the students. The

one is qualitative and the second one is

refers

which

In addition, Pinter (2006) states children

questionnaire is “yes” and “no” question. data

questionnaire,

provided for marking yes or no (Best, 1981).

from questionnaire sheet. The format of the

quantitative

of

administered was the Closed Form. It

quantitative. Qualitative data were obtained

Whereas,

type

may simply misunderstand a question

to

because the language used confuses them.

students’ English score obtained from both

Therefore, since the respondents have not

in pretest and posttest. The vocabulary test

mastered English yet, the questionnaire used

that consisted of 16 multiple-choice items

their first language so that it would be more

that the students had to finish in 70 minutes.

understandable.

The length of time was determined after the

Moreover, there are some procedures

writer conducted a pilot test. Thus, the pilot

should be taken, those are; 1) Reviewing

test was administered to make sure that the

related research and related theory; 2)

test had validity and reliability, and to

Administering pretest; 3) Computing pretest

analyze the items as well as to determine the

result;

length of the test time. 6

4)

Implementing

treatment;

5)

Conducting

posttest;

6)

Distributing

vocabulary mastery of the sixth graders or

questionnaire to the students; 7) Computing

not. Before analyzing the t value, the normal

posttest and questionnaire result; 8) Drawing

distribution test was done. In addition,

general conclusion. In addition, researcher

employing the dependent sample t-test

was conducted the pretest on Thursday,

involves several steps. First, stating the

March 29, 2018. Then, Treatment 1 was

hypothesis.

conducted on Friday, April 13, 2018.

hypotehesis was proposed. H0 : “The

Furthermore,

implementation of TPR method does not

researcher

was

conducted

In

study,

null

improve

Finally,

of

mastery.” Second, calculating the data

questionnaire was conducted on Thursday,

gathered from pretest and posttest. Third,

May 17, 2018.

analyzing the data by using the assistance of

and

distributing

learners’

the

Treatment 2 on Thursday, May 10, 2018. posttest

young

this

vocabulary

The data analysis in this study was done

SPSS 17. Fourth, selecting the level of

by using Microsoft Office Excel and BIM

significance (p) which was 0.05. Fifth,

SPSS 17. The data gathered from the test

determining whether the null hypothesis

instruments;

(H0) is rejected or not. If the t obtained

pretest

and

posttest.

The

t

quantitative data was the result of the pretest

critical, either positive or negative, it means

and posttest. The test was in a form of

that H0 can be rejected. On the other side, if

multiple choices. According to Rodriguez

the tobt

(2005), there are two ways to score multiple

tcrit, it means that H0 cannot be

rejected.

choices test. The first, scoring the test by giving one point in each correct number without making a correction. The second,

4. Results 4.1 The Result of Pretest and Posttest Score

scoring the test by giving a consideration to

Analysis

wrong answer questions and unanswered

Based on the data, TPR improved young

questions. Furthermore, the result of pretest

learners’ vocabulary mastery. It was proven

and posttest was calculated and compared in

by the statistical data that indicated the

order

is

significant difference between pretest and

after

posttest scores. The improvement can be

treatment. The Dependent sample t-test was

seen in the result of mean score and the

employed to analyze the data. The purpose

dependent t-test. The mean score of the

of this test is to determine whether the

students increased. There were 16 multiple

means of two groups’ scores differ to a

questions that were tested. The scores of

statistically significant degree (Kranzler and

pretest and posttest were obtained from

Moursund, 1998). In this study, this analysis

students’ raw scores that were transformed

was used to show whether the use of TPR

into scores scale from 0-100. After gaining

method was effective for improving the

the pretest and posttest scores, the analysis

to

significance

find

out

between

whether before

there and

7

was conducted by the assistance of SPSS 17.

pretest and posttest result.

The table below showed the analysis of Table 4.1 The Result of Pretest and Posttest Score Analysis

Pair 1 pretest posttest

Std.

Std. Error

Deviation

Mean

Mean

N

Median

Mode

Range

Min

Max

64.2500

32

21.19114

3.74610

69.00

87.50

75.00

12.50

87.50

86.3281

32

19.34684

3.42007

100

100

75.00

25.00

100

Based on the table above, the average of

the value of tcrit (-2.021). It showed that tobt

pretest score was 64.25, the value of mid

was larger than tcrit (-10.357 > -2.021).

scores was 69, and the most frequently

Besides that, the significance value was

occurring score was 87.5. Then, it could be

0.000. It was lower than the level of

seen from the table that the highest score of

significance, which was 0.05. Consequently,

pretest was 87.5 while the lowest score was

H0 was rejected. This implies that there was

12.5 so that the range of the scores was 75.

a significant difference between pretest and

In addition, since the mean of pretest was

posttest scores.

64.25 and standard deviation was 21.19, it

According to both results, H0 can be

could be interprete that many of students’

rejected. In other words, it indicated that

socres were between approximately 43.06

young

and 85.44. Then, the table above showed

improved through TPR method. The result

that the increasing of students’ score from

was supported by a study conducted by

pretest to posttest was quite high. The mean

Castro (2010) that the method made an

value raised 22.08 point from 64.25 to

important difference on students’ vocabulary

86.33. Then, the median and mode became

retention. It might be because that method

100 in posttest. In addition, even though the

was able to make students engaged to the

range of the score remained the same, but

lesson so that they enjoyed the process of

the highest score was 100 and the lowest

learning. Besides that, it is also in line with

score was 25. Both scores increased because

the intention of TPR method that is to make

on the pretest the highest score was 87.5

as much as possible comprehensible input

while the lowest was 12.5. Furthermore, in

for

Table 4.1showed that the mean of pre-ttest

advantages of TPR method might also

scores was lower than the post-test scores

support the research result. With this

(64.25 < 86.3281). In addition, the result of

method, the students first learn words by

the dependent t-test indicated that the

practicing them with a movement or gesture.

students had greater scores on posttest than

Then, the vocabulary is practiced through

pretest. Table 2 showed that the value of tobt

the telling of stories.

was -10.357. This value was compared to 8

the

learners’

learners

vocabulary

(Brune,

mastery

2004).

The

Furthermore, the discover whether there

1.517. therefore, it could be inferred that the

is a significant difference between pretest

data were normally distributed because the

and posttest scores or not, the dependent t-

Skewness values were approximately zero.

test was applied. However, before applying

After doing the normal distribution test,

the dependent t-test, the normal distribution

the dependent t-test was applied. This

test should be employed. It has a purpose to

analysis was done by paired samples t-test of

find out the pattern of data in the distribution

SPSS 17 for Windows. The result of the

(Shier,

analysis was presented as follows.

2004).

To

check

the

normal

distribution, the analysis on Skewness value

Table 4.3 Paired Samples Correlation

was conducted.

N Pair 1

Table 4.2 The Result of Normal Distribution Test N

Statistic

32 32 32

-1.005 -1.517

Pretest Posttest Valid N (listwise)

Correlation

32

.827

The table 4.3 above showed that

Skewness

Statistic

pretest & posttest

there was a strong positive correlation.

Std. Error .414 .414

Hence, it could be said the students who did well on the pretest also did well on the posttest. Furthermore, the result of pretest

Based on the analysis result above, the

and posttest scores analysis and paired

Table 4.2 showed that the value of Skewness

sample t-test can be seen on the following

of pretest was -1.005 and posttest was -

table.

Table 4.4 The Result of Dependent t-test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Pair 1 pretest – posttest

Std. Deviation

-22.07813

12.05840

Std. Error Mean 2.13264

Lower -26.42564

t

Upper -17.73061

df

-10.357

31

Sig. (2tailed) .000

Based on the result above, Table 4.4

scores. Thus, it can be inferred that the use

showed that the value of tobt was -10.357.

of TPR method improved young learners’

This value was compared to the value of tcrit

vocabulary mastery.

(-2.021). It showed that tobt was larger than tcrit

(-10.357

>

-2.021).

Besides,

the

4.2 The Result of Questionnaire

significance values was 0.000. It was lower

The questionnaire was administered to

than the level of significance which was

gather the information about students’

0.05. Consequently, H0 was rejected. This

responses toward the implementation of

implies

TPR method.

that

there

was

a

significant

difference between pretest and posttest

There

were

six closed

questions, which delivered to 32 students. 9

Sig. .000

The

results

of

the

questionnaire

are

presented as follows.

Table 4.2.1 The Results of Questionnaire Number of Question NO

Students’ Name

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Akbar Ramadhan Akbar Rizky Hidayatuloh Alleta Aurelia Amalia Chandra Asih Andhika Pratama Ditha Permata Elya Melinda G Hilman Riswandi Imas Dini Nurhayati Juliana Muhamad .S. M. Nazwan Daulallah Maya Erina Mona Dewi Paramita Muhamad Fikri Akbar Muhammad Iqbal .S Muhammad Rian Syah Muhammad Triyadi Nashifa Keizya Rifa .R Naufal Malicu Ahmad Nayla Putri Audrylea Novia Intan Nur Rizki Prima Romadhon C.t Putri Jenita Rahma Ramadhan Rahmat Ramadhan Rindu Kasna S. D. Ririn Rinjani Robi Ikhwan Robbani Salsabila Aulia Aprilian Seifa Oktaviane Thirza Candra Virana Trisna Tiara

1

2

3

4

5

6

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y

Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

32

24

28

27

28

32

0

8

4

5

4

0

100%

75%

87,5%

84%

87,5%

100%

0%

25%

12,5%

16%

12,5%

0%

(yes)

(no) P (yes) P (no)

Based on the table 4.2.1 above, the

of students perceived that by TPR method

results of the questionnaire are; 1) All

learning English vocabulary became easier.

students (100%) gave positive answer, they

5) There were 87.5% of students responded

agreed that English was a fun lesson. 2) The

that memorizing the vocabulary was easier

second question showed that 75% of

by using TPR method. 6) All students stated

students were students were interested in

that they were more motivated to learn

learning by using TPR method. 3) There

English by using TPR method.

were 87.5% of students who stated TPR method as a fun method. 4) There were 84% 10

using

Conclusion The aims of this study are purposed to

TPR

method,

6)

memorizing

vocabulary by TPR method was easy.

find out the effectiveness of TPR method in improving

young

learners’

vocabulary

Suggestions

mastery and students’ responses toward the

There are some suggestions that are

use of this method. Based on the result, it

addressed to the English teacher, the

can be concluded that TPR method is

students and the future researchers. Firstly,

effective for improving young learners’

for the English teacher, TPR method is

vocabulary mastery, especially for the sixth

suitable for teacher in primary level to teach

grade. There might be some factors that

English words, but sometimes it will be

affected the success of TPR method in the

boring if the method used repeatedly.

young learners class. First, it might be

Therefore,

because the method was interesting for the

interesting technique such as song, game,

students. This method was a new thing for

story to teach the words. Furthermore, if

them. Normally, their teacher used the

using story teacher should use different

conventional methods such as explanation

voice to make the character alive. Secondly,

and translation. Second, the researcher used

it also suggested the students not only to

interesting media such as colorful pictures

review the new vocabulary they have

and puppet that could attract students’

learned but also to apply it in their daily life

attention with the learning process. Third,

so that they will not forget it easily. Thirdly,

the students’ interest in learning English was

the future researchers are suggested to

also prompted. All students stated that they

conduct the research about TPR method in

liked learning English. In addition, young

different levels. In addition, researchers are

learners would be enthusiastic for learning if

also suggested to conducting try out before

they were interested. Fourth, the learning

pretest to find out the validity and reliability

activities were enjoyable. The combination

of the test instrument, and conducting

between physical activity and storytelling

research in longer period and with a larger

was suitable for them.

sample. Therefore, researchers could gather

Furthermore, the questionnaire results

teacher

should

results that are more detailed.

also supported the research findings. The conclusions of questionnaire results are: 1) students agreed that English was a fun lesson, 2) students liked TPR method, 3) TPR method was a fun method, 4) learning English vocabulary was easier through the implementation of TPR method, 5) students were more motivated when learning by 11

create

an

09467.pdf. Accessed on April 7,

References

2018. Asher, J. (1966). The learning strategy of the

Curtain,

Total Physical Response: A review.

Young

Asher, J. (2010). TPR: After Forty Years,

of

world.com/japan-article.html.

Best, J. W. (1981). Research in Education (4th Edition). Englewood Cliffs:

Total

Physical

K-8.

Response

Language

Teaching.

Discussion

Paper

(Research EDUC480).

Retrieved

Prentice-Hall.

from

http://www.macalester.edu/educatio

(2001).

Teaching

by

nreform/actionresearch/action%20r

Principles, An Interactive Approach

esearch%20-%20beth.pdf.

to Language Pedagogy. Englewood

Accessed on April 13, 2018.

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Dewi, L. A. R. (2010). The Effects of Total

Brune, M. K. (2004). Total Physical

Physical Response – Storytelling to

Response Storytelling: An Analysis Application.

Teach

(Thesis,

Vocabulary

to

Improve

Elementary Students’ Vocabulary

University of Oregon). Retrieved

Achievement. (Magister Scientie).

from

Gross, S. (2007). The Three Steps of TPR-

http://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xm

Storytelling.

lui/bitstream/handle/1794/310/TPR

Khorasgani, A. T. & Khanehgir, M. (2017).

Cameron, L. (2005). Teaching Language to

Teaching

Cambridge:

Young

Cambridge University Press. Carter, R. &

and

(Pilot

Dominican

University

California).

Retrieved

Learners:

Using

to Two

pp. 150-156. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in

Castro, R. (2010). TPRS for Adult in the ESL 1.

Vocabulary

and Keyword Method. Vol.6, No.2,

Language

Teaching. London: Longman Inc.

Classroom

New

Methods Total Physical Response

McCarthy, M. (1998).

Vocabulary

from

cles. Accessed on April 13, 2018.

5). Accessed on March 25, 2018.

Learners.

Retrieved

http://www.susangrosstprs.com/arti

SthesisFINISHED.pdf?sequence=1(

Young

Grades

Storytelling in Secondary Foreign

Accessed on April 1, 2018.

and

Learners,

Decker, B. (2008). Body Language: The Use

http://www.tpr-

D.

(2010).

Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Still A Very Good Idea. Retrieved from

Dahlberg.

the Match: New Languages for

53(1), 79-84.

H.

and

Languages and Children, Making

The Modern Language Journal,

Brown,

H.,

Education (IJERE). Accessed on 13

Study,

April, 2018.

of from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED5 12

Kranzler, G. & Moursund, J. (1998).

ResearchGate

Statistics for the Terrified: Second

Accessed on May 13, 2018.

Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Saville-Troike,

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). Teachniques and

Principles

Teaching.

in

Language

Oxford:

Oxford

Language

Introducing Acquisition.

Press. Scott, W. & Ytreberg, L. H. (2004).

Principles

Teaching English to Children. New

and

York: Longman.

Practices. In Celce-Murcia, M. Teaching

English

as

Shier, R. (2004). Paired t-test. Mathematics

a

Learning Support Center. Accessed

Secoind or Foreign Language, 3rd edition,

(2006).

Cambridge: Cambridge University

Morley, J. (2001). Aural Comprehension

(Ed.)

M.

Second

University Press.

Instruction:

Publication.

69-85.

Boston:

on May 12, 2018.

Heinle

Silmi, Rifka. (2017). The Implementation of

Cengage Learning.

Total

Physical

Response

in

M. C. Rodriguez. 2005. Three Options are

Teaching Writing Procedural Text.

Optimal for Multiple-Choice Items:

Thesis. Accessed on May 12, 2018.

A Meta-Analysis of 80 Years of

Retrieved from repository.upi.edu.

Research.

Nunan,

Pinter,

Educational

Suhendan, Er. (2013). Using Total Physical

Measurement: Issues and Practice,

Response

pp.3-13.

Childhood

D.

(2003).

Practical

English

Method Foreign

Teaching

in

Early

Language Environment.

–

Language Teaching. New York:

ScienceDirect

McGeaw Hill.

Behavioral Science. Accessed on

A.

(2006).

Language

Teaching

Young

Learners.

June 9, 2018.

Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Ray, B. (2004). TPR-Storytelling Advanced Techniques.

Retrieved

from

http://www.TPRstories.com/ijflt. Accessed on May 13, 2018. Richards, J. &

Rogers,

Approaches

and

T.

(2001).

Methods

in

Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savic, V. M. 2016. Total Physical Response (TPR) English

Activities to

in

Teaching

Young

Learners. 13

Social

and