206-1593-1-PB

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/206-1593-1-pb 1/10

Networks: Vol. 12, Issue 1 Spring 2010

Roof & Kreutter 1

An Interactive Storytelling Puzzle:Building a Positive Environment in a Second LanguageClassroom

Lisa M. Roof and Cheryl A. Kreutter

Abstract

The Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS) method promised superiorresults in a second language classroom. However, experiences using the method in a middle schoolSpanish classroom were not always positive. Classroom structure dissolved during the interactive

storytelling sessions when students’ disruptive responses overshadowed the benefits of theteaching method. This paper describes an action research project designed to analyze studentengagement during two different TPRS lessons. In the first lesson, the classroom teacher followedthe TPRS procedures with no modifications. In the second lesson, the teacher revised the lessonprocedures by (a) explicitly stating clear expectations and giving the students a concretemeasurement of expectations, (b) providing an added visual element, and (c) giving the studentsopportunities to respond chorally during the storytelling. Students were more positively engagedfor the second lesson as evidenced by their active response to the story in the target language.Results suggest that, along with providing clear expectations for the students’ role during thelesson, adding strong classroom management, story-related props and choral response are useful ways to support student learning using TPRS in a second language classroom.

The Teaching Proficiency through Readingand Storytelling (TPRS) method promisedsuperior results in a second languageclassroom. However, experiences using themethod in a middle school Spanish classroom were not always positive. Classroom structuredissolved during the interactive storytellingsessions when students’ disruptive responsesovershadowed the benefits of the teaching

method. Through Lisa’s writer voice, we tellthe story of an action research projectdesigned to investigate how modifications to aTPRS lesson might assist students in becoming more engaged and less disruptive.

Lisa’s Story

When I was a small child, I attempted adifficult jigsaw puzzle. However, I did not want to spend my time with the mundane

outer edges. I was drawn to the colors andshapes that were elsewhere within the puzzle.Unfortunately, the difficult task eventuallyeroded my enthusiasm and I gave it upaltogether.

Similarly to working with that first jigsawpuzzle, I found using the Teaching Proficiencythrough Reading and Storytelling (TPRS)method to be overwhelming. When I first

read articles about the method, it resonated with my linguistic and literacy training. As aSpanish teacher at a rural middle school, Isaw the glazed expression on my students’faces whenever I introduced a new grammarconcept. I knew through my undergraduatelinguistic training that introducing rules andteaching vocabulary out of context was notthe way that children acquired their firstlanguage—so why did I expect it to be

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB



Roof & Kreutter 2

successful in teaching a second language? Ialso learned, through my graduate literacystudies, the importance of context in teachinga child to read. Context seemed equallyimportant in teaching children how tounderstand vocabulary in a new language.

The TPRS method offered promise as aninnovative and exciting way to teach Spanishto my students in a contextualized mannerthat mirrored my students’ acquisition oftheir first language. I was drawn to pieces ofthe method in the same way as I had beendrawn to the different colors and shapes inthe jigsaw puzzle; but as I attempted to useaspects of TPRS instruction in my classroom,my enthusiasm faded. During the interactive,storytelling format of the method, students became disruptive and distracted, causing the

structured atmosphere of my classroom to break down. Surprisingly, the studentsusually were not disruptive because of boredom or lack of engagement, but becausethey became absorbed in the story to thepoint that they strayed from the Spanishnarrative and many of them, consequently,talked out of turn. The TPRS picture in myclassroom did not look like the promisingpicture on the box of the “TPRS jigsawpuzzle”—it was just a pile of unconnected

pieces.

To address my concerns about this breakdown in classroom structure during theTPRS instruction, I developed an actionresearch project that focused on modifyingthe TPRS method in ways that kept studentsengaged within a well-managed classroom. Iconducted the research in my combined 7th and 8th grade Spanish class in a rural schooldistrict in Western New York where I havetaught for three years. My colleague, (second

author) provided guidance as I developed thestudy and remained a critical friendthroughout the data collection process andinitial analysis of the findings. Cheryl activelyparticipated in analyzing the final studyresults and co-authoring this article.

Two key questions guided my research:

In teaching a TPRS lesson, how can Iactively involve students, yet still

maintain positive classroommanagement so that the students areengaged in learning?

What factors are affecting my negative perception of the lessons, and how can Iimprove my technique so that I feelcomfortable with the results?

This paper is my development of theframework involving the puzzle of TPRS. Byfocusing on the outer structure, I made roomto create the entire picture successfully. Inthe following pages, I first explain theTeaching Proficiency through Reading andStorytelling (TPRS) method. Second, Iexplore recent research on classroommanagement and its role in studentachievement. After laying the foundation for

this study, I describe the participants,research methods, and findings. Finally, Idiscuss the conclusions I reached about theeffectiveness of the intervention and suggestareas for future research.

The Teaching Proficiency throughReading and Storytelling (TPRS)

Teaching Method

The TPRS teaching method originates from akinesthetic instructional approach entitled,

“Total Physical Response” (TPR). In the 1960sand 1970s, Dr. James Asher introduced themethod, in which students physicallyresponded to various commands in the targetlanguage (Davidheiser, 2002). The instructor began by demonstrating simple commands,such as “sit down” and “stand up” in thetarget language. Through practice andrepetition, the students learn to respond tothe teacher’s commands. The teachergradually builds on the students’ growing

repertoire of words until students canrespond to complex directions (e.g. “Stand up,turn around three times, walk to the whiteboard, and write your name with amarker.”) (Asher, 2000).

Blaine Ray expanded this method in the1990s to include simple stories created in thetarget language that used TPR commands asthe foundation and added details to furtherstudents’ language experience. His method,

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB


8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB



Roof & Kreutter 5

In seeking ways to increase opportunities foractive student engagement, Christle andSchuster (2003) studied a fourth- grade mathclass where students were given a responsecard (a whiteboard) for some lessons and were asked one-on-one questions about othersimilar lessons. Using the whiteboards

created the expectation that all students would respond to the teacher’s questions,rather than allowing one student to respond.Study results indicated that when the teachergave students more opportunities to respondduring the lesson, the students’ time-on-task,positive behavior, and achievement increased.Similarly, in a classroom for students withemotional behavior disorders, researchersgave the students increased responseopportunities and they found that behavior

problems decreased as students respondedmore to the teacher’s questions (Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003).

This research suggests there is a correlation between some classroom-managementstrategies, student engagement, andachievement. Giving students clearexpectations and modeling and reinforcingthese expectations may effectively influence behavior in the classroom. Also, by providingstudents with ample opportunities to respond

to the lesson, an instructor may positivelyimpact student engagement and lessoneffectiveness. In light of these researchresults, I used Simonsen et al’s checklist toevaluate my classroom- managementstrengths and weaknesses during the study(See Appendix C).

The Research Project

Participants and Setting

The students in this study were 7th and 8thgraders in a rural school district in WesternNew York. I observed a classroom of fifteenstudents. Thirteen students were 7th gradersand two students were 8th graders. I focusedon seven students because these studentsattended all three of the observation sessionsand were able to be observed during eachsession (i.e., the view of the students was notobstructed on the video by other students ordesks). This was their first year learning

Spanish. The Spanish class met daily for fortyminutes. Pseudonyms are used for all of theparticipants in this study.

Research Design

I videotaped two lessons. Lesson A wasrecorded as a baseline lesson to observe the

effectiveness of the method without anymodifications. After observing the lesson, Idetermined what changes needed to be madeand used the “Classroom AssessmentChecklist” (Simonsen et al., 2008) to identifyfactors that may have affected students’ behavior (Appendixes B & C). I alsocategorized the sections of the lessons andnoted my thoughts as I watched the video(Appendixes D & E). I then filmed Lesson B,a second lesson in which I had changed the

lesson based on my observation of the firstlesson. Due to time constraints, the secondlesson was split into two different classperiods. After both lessons, I coded the behavior of the seven students who attendedall three sessions and who were easily visibleon the videotape. Their behavior wasrecorded on a scale of 0-3 in one-minuteintervals. A score of “3” denoted - “stronglyengaged” behavior (student seemed engagedand was looking at the teacher or lessonpresentation and responding to teacherprompts); “2” represented a student who waslooking away from the presentation, but stillseem engaged in the lesson (responds toteacher prompts or makes comments thatindicate some level attentiveness); and a “1”indicated the student was being disruptive in ways that inhibited learning. Such behaviorsincluded talking or visually distracting otherstudents. Because of the variance in Lessons A and B, I used the sections of the two lessonsthat were the same. For both lessons, I coded

the behavior for the first five minutes of thestorytelling section of the lesson and for thefirst five minutes of the dramatization time ofthe lesson (See Appendix A).

The storytelling section of the lessons, as wellas the dramatization, were based on the TPRSlesson structure as shown in Figure 1. TheTPRS stories I used for the lesson wereincluded as part of the first- year Spanish

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB



Roof & Kreutter 6

Figure 2: Level of Student Engagement, Lesson A.

curriculum, En Español, (Gahala, Carlin,Heining-Boynton, Otheguy, Rupert, 2004).

The stories, written by Fritze (n.d.), coincided with the vocabulary of Unit Two, LessonThree in the textbook. Both stories, withtranslations, are included in the appendixes(Appendixes F and G). As I read the story tothe students, I asked questions to clarifymeaning and check the students’comprehension level. Then, I called onstudents to act out the story and read thestory again as the students dramatized theaction.

Figure 2 shows the level of engagement ofseven students in the classroom during the baseline lesson. The mean value of engaged behavior for all seven students during thestorytelling time was 2.4. During thedramatization, the mean was 2.8. Megan hadthe lowest engagement score (1.5) for thestorytelling portion of the lesson. Jeff’s score was consistently lower than the mean (2) for both the storytelling and dramatization.

Baseline Observations

Based on my observation of the video, I

answered ten out of thirteen questions on the“Classroom Assessment Checklist” (Simonsenet al., 2008) in the affirmative, confirmingthat those classroommanagement strategies were present in my classroom. I answered“no” to three out of the thirteen questions. Allthree questions related to expectations. Uponreflection I recognized that I did not clearlystate my expectations for the storytelling anddramatization. I also did not monitor orreinforce the expectations. A copy of the

Lesson A Classroom Assessment Checklist isincluded in the appendixes (Appendix B).

While observing the baseline lesson, I noticedthat students made at least twenty-sevencomments in English during the first telling ofthe story. Students did not make anycomments in Spanish. I also noticed that thestudents seemed to lose focus whenever Ilooked down to reference the text as I was

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB



Roof & Kreutter 7

reading the story. A complete list of thesegeneral observations is included in theappendixes (Appendixes D and E).

What We Learned

Discussion of Lesson A

I was surprised at how engaged students wereduring the baseline lesson. Even withoutmodifications, TPRS seems to be a lessontechnique that holds students’ attention. Theprimary exceptions to engaged behavior wereMegan and Jeff.

At the end of lesson A, which focused on thestory of a girl misbehaving in Spanish class, Iasked the students some more questionsabout the story to check comprehension. Jeffand I had the following conversation:

Me: Jeff, ¿Está en la clase de matemáticaso la clase de español? (Is she in math classor Spanish class?)

Jeff: (scribbling in his notebook) I'mtrying to figure out what the "aspieces" or whatever is. (I think this is hisinterpretation of “matemáticas”)

(I repeat the question more slowly.)

Jeff: (whispers to students) What does

that mean?

Jeff’s comments at the end of the baselinelesson revealed the cause of his inattentionduring the lesson. When I asked him aquestion about the lesson, he had difficultyunderstanding the vocabulary used in myquestion. In successfully employing the TPRSmethod, it is important to conduct frequentcomprehension checks to be sure thatstudents like Jeff are receivingcomprehensible input. I believe that Jeffstopped paying attention because he did notunderstand the story.

I suspect that Megan did not pay attention fordifferent reasons. Megan became fascinated with the dynamics of a piece of stringthroughout the storytelling time of the lessonand talked to other classmates during thestorytelling session. However, she was muchmore attentive when students were acting out

the story. I suspect that Megan is a visuallearner. Without pictures or a drama to focusher attention, she created her own visualstimulus during the storytelling. This wasconfirmed by the complete attention sheshowed to the dramatization of the story.

Tyrone and Lisa also received somewhatlower scores for engagement level. Lisafrequently looked down at her desk, althoughshe appeared to be listening throughout thelesson. Tyrone was listening, because heinterrupted the lesson to ask a question inEnglish about a minor point in the story. Although this was distracting for me andprobably some other students in the class, itactually confirmed his attentiveness.

My frustration with the TPRS method

originated from two factors that were presentin the baseline lesson: (a) students mademany comments in English during thestorytelling time, and (b) I was dependentupon the text to tell the story, and I had torefer to it many times. The comments inEnglish were quick and short; however, I believe that these comments were related tomy negative feelings toward the TPRSlessons. Like a buzzing mosquito, theseconstant distractions inhibited a clear andfocused lesson. This was clearly a missingedge piece to the puzzle. My dependencyupon the text also diverted the lesson focus. At first, I was unsure how I could resolve theproblem, but using pictures not only helpedme to become less dependent upon the text, but it also supported student attentiveness.The pieces were falling into place.

Modifications. Based on these results, Idecided to modify the next lesson - Lesson B.First, I realized that I needed to provide clear

expectations for the TPRS lesson. At the beginning of Lesson B, I explained thatstudents were not allowed to respond inEnglish, but could only respond to the story inSpanish. To monitor this expectation, I gaveone student a whiteboard divided into twosections. Her role was to record every time astudent responded in English and every timea student responded in Spanish. I rewarded

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB



Roof & Kreutter 8

Figure 3. Level of Student Engagement, Lessons A and B.

the students with an extra “chili-pepperpoint” (my method of positive behavior

reinforcement) if they were able to respondprimarily in Spanish.

In order to facilitate the students’ ability torespond in Spanish, I provided them withthree phrases that they could use throughoutthe story (¡Qué cómico!- That’s funny!; ¡Nome digas! - You’re kidding!, and ¡Qué lástima!- That’s too bad!). One student held up thesign with the phrase he chose at variouspoints in the story. The students responded by stating each phrase. This provided

students with a positive behavior to replacetheir previous behavior of yelling outcomments in English that increased theopportunities for students to respond.

The other way I modified the lesson was touse eight pictures to illustrate the story. Iprojected the pictures on the overhead for thestudents to see during the initial storytelling

time. The pictures are included in AppendixH.

As shown in Figure 3, the amount of averagestudent engagement either increased orremained the same for the seven studentsobserved. The mean engagement behavior forall seven students was 2.9 out of 3 for thestorytelling portion of Lesson B and 2.9 out of3 for the dramatization.

Observations. For the second lesson, Ianswered “yes” to all thirteen areas includedon the Classroom Assessment Checklist

(Simonsen et al., 2008). During the secondlesson, students made thirteen comments inSpanish and two in English during thestorytelling time. I saw no incidences of off-task behavior while I told the story. While Ireviewed the story, four students seemedslightly distracted, but they did not disruptother students, and their inattentiveness was brief. Jeff fidgeted during the lesson and puthis head down on his desk, but he did not

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB



Roof & Kreutter 9

disrupt other students, and he was engagedduring most of the lesson. Megan helped todirect the other students during thedramatization. She mimed eating to help theactor remember that he was supposed to eat apork rind.

Reflections on Lesson B. Using pictures was effective in keeping students engagedduring the storytelling time. Both Megan’sand Jeff’s level of engagement scoresimproved. I argue that the pictures aided both learners. Jeff was able to understand thestory better through the illustrations, andMegan was able to remain attentive.

I felt more comfortable delivering the secondlesson. In delineating expectations for thestudents, I was less distracted in telling the

story because students were not makingcomments in English. Instead, they wereresponding chorally in Spanish. Secondly, byproviding pictures to illustrate the storytellingtime, I was able to tell the story withoutreferring to the text. The pictures helped meto maintain more eye contact with studentsand to be able to monitor students’ responsesto the story, instead of having to continue toreference the text. These factors weredefinitely “edge pieces” in the TPRS jigsaw.

Conclusions

The observations that I made in thepreliminary lesson motivated me to makefocused changes in the second lesson.Through explicitly stating expectations, usingdrawings to illustrate the story, and byproviding opportunities for choral responses,I was able to fit many pieces of the TPRS jigsaw together. These modifications gavestudents opportunities for active involvement,

yet still enabled me to maintain positiveclassroom management.

I will continue to place the edges and cornersof the TPRS method in my classroom; withthe modifications I developed to help guidethis process. Still, there are some colorful jigsaw pieces in the box that catch my eye.These considerations for further research would be the affective component of thelessons. The humor in the first story seemed

to have a strong effect on the students’positive feelings about the lesson. Does thishumor also affect the students’ vocabularyretention and motivation to learn? Anotherfactor of the TPRS lesson is the personalizedquestion and answer time. How can this partof the lesson be used to best aid

comprehension? Although there are stillmany more details about the teaching methodthat I need to master, I feel that I have built aframework for future success with storytellingin my classroom.

References

Asher, James. (2000). Learning anotherlanguage through actions (7th ed.). Sky Oaks,CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

Catania, A.B. (2007). Cuentos fantasticos:TPR storytelling for the first year of Spanish.Saranac Lake, NY: Good Teaching StuffPublishing.

Christle, C., & Schuster, J. (2003, September).The effects of using response cards on studentparticipation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class mathinstruction. Journal of Behavioral Education,12(3), 147-165.

Davidheiser, J. (2002). Teaching German with TPRS (Total Physical ResponseStorytelling). Unterrichtspraxis/TeachingGerman, 35(1), 25-35.

Fritze, J. (n.d.) Total physical responsestorytelling. Evanston, Illinois: McDougalLittell.

Gahala, E., Carlin, P. H., Heining-Boynton, A.L., Otheguy, R. & Rupert, B. J. (Eds.).(2004). En Español . Evanston, IL: McDougalLittell.

Johnson, T., Stoner, G., & Green, S. (1996).Demonstrating the experimenting societymodel with classwide behavior managementinterventions. School Psychology Review,25 (2), 199-214.

Kariuki, P., & Bush, E. (2008). The effects ofTotal Physical Response by Storytelling andthe traditional teaching styles of a foreignlanguage in a selected high school. Annual

8/11/2019 206-1593-1-PB



Roof & Kreutter 10

Conference, Mid-South Educational Research Association. Knoxville, TN November 5-7,2008. Reading.

Lohrmann, S., & Talerico, J. (2004). Anchorthe boat: A classwide intervention to reduceproblem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(2), 113-120.

Parris, S., & Block, C. (2007, April 1). Theexpertise of adolescent literacy teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(7), 582-596.

Ray, B., & Seely, C. (1998). Fluency throughTPR storytelling: Achieving real languageacquisition in school (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA:Command Performance Language Institute.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A.,

Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-

based practices in classroom management:Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3),351-380.

Skala, C. (2003). Optimizing basic Frenchskills utilizing multiple teaching techniques.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED479988) Retrieved April 20, 2009, fromERIC database.

Sutherland, K., Alder, N., & Gunter, P.(2003). The effect of varying rates ofopportunities to respond to academicrequests on the classroom behavior ofstudents with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 239-248.

206-1593-1-PB

Documents

Transcript of 206-1593-1-PB