Teaching English vocabulary to young learners through total physical response method

it created a fun, easy, and memorable 
learning atmosphere and activities. 
L9 reported: "We are interested in physical movements, imitation, songs, etc. And TPR has 
all techniques, which always make me excited". L3 asserted: "This method created a positive and 
lively atmosphere in the class." 
One learner (L1) was in favor of the procedure of TPR which was fairly simple, suitable, 
and easy to follow. Moreover, TPR facilitates them to understand the target language without 
translation to the mother tongue. 
However, with the last question “Did you meet any difficulties in learning English 
vocabulary through TPR? What limitations of TPR you think need to change or improve?” They 
Ha Dinh Nhu Nguyen et al. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(5), 26-40 37 
also shared some disadvantages of TPR which they experienced. As mentioned above in previous 
aspects, L2 and L3 complained to the researcher about "overusing TPR," which causes learners to 
bored. 
"TPR procedure utilized too many imperative drills, which made me feel overloaded 
sometimes (L9)." Moreover, L4 reflected: "This method is not really creative. I do not have any 
opportunities to express my thoughts." 
4.2. Discussion 
4.2.1. The effect of the TPR method on the young learners’ vocabulary retention 
The results of the present study seem to be satisfactorily consistent with the above-
mentioned theories. First of all, the finding supports the theory of learning of TPR. It can be said 
that the participants in the experimental group recalled the words more effectively because they 
follow children's naturalistic process of absorbing the native language. Particularly, TPR mimics 
the process of first language acquisition, which is applied in second language teaching and 
learning. TPR respects the brain lateralization involving the brain hemispheres' functions: listening 
comprehension before verbal production. Similarly, Peck (2001, p. 143) remarked that "YLs seem 
to learn a language quickly when there is a combination of brain and body." The final one which 
the researcher recognizes as a crucial factor is the reduction of stress which is stated that the fewer 
stress learners endure better learning results they have (Richard & Rodgers, 1999). Secondly, the 
current result is in agreement with the way young learners learn foreign/second language which 
the researcher had discussed in the literature review. As Scott and Ytreberg (1990, p.2) emphasized 
that "Young learners' understanding comes from hands and eyes and ears, and the physical world 
is dominant at all times." 
Last but not least, the finding corroborates the ideas of Harmer (2007, p. 84), who suggested 
that the learners should be encouraged to use their own thoughts and experiences to respond to 
texts and situations, rather than just giving answers and learning theoretically. It indicates that it 
will be easy for the learners to acquire and remember the words for long-term retention if they 
combine their body in learning vocabulary. That is the reason why TPR helps the YLs understand 
and remember vocabulary for long-term retention effectively. 
On the other hand, GMT is a teaching foreign language method which focuses on the 
development of students' appreciation of the target language literature and teaching the language. 
Translation and reading comprehension is the main concern. In GMT, with vocabulary teaching 
activities, the teacher writes the words on the board and translates them directly into the native 
language. The learners are passive during the learning process, which makes learners bored and 
forget the material easily. They are also not interested in the learning process. This condition is 
not relevant to the characteristics of young learners. They seem attracted to experiences than 
learning theories. In addition, they are fond of learning by practicing it or actively take part in the 
learning process. After considering the characteristics of those methods, it might be concluded that 
TPR can bring a better result to students' vocabulary retention. 
The findings of the present study are consistent with Forero and Muñoz (2011), who 
conducted the research project to observe the impact of TPR on vocabulary knowledge of third 
graders from "Gamma" school in Pereira, Colombia. The results obtained revealed that teaching 
English vocabulary through TPR allows students to learn faster and easier. Also, the result from 
the research of Pujiningsih (2013) gave the consistent result that TPR enhanced YLs vocabulary 
acquisition. Also, the result was in accordance with the findings of the previous study of Ghani 
and Hanim (2014) which identified that TPR was suitable and meaningful for teaching English 
38 Nguyen Dinh Nhu Ha et al. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(5), 26-40 
vocabulary to children at early stages of the learning process. Furthermore, the result is in line with 
that of the previous studies of Octaviany (2007), Sari (2015) and Qiu (2016). 
4.2.2. The young learners’ attitudes towards the use of TPR 
With respect to the YLs' attitudes towards TPR, upon analyzing the results from the 
responses of the interview, it became evident that the YLs had positive attitudes towards the use 
of TPR. They reported in the affective reaction interview that they felt "interested," "enthusiastic," 
and "joyful" at higher frequencies than emotions such as "bored," and "shy." Furthermore, the YLs 
were all in accordance with many of the positive statements in the interview regarding nearly every 
aspect of TPR on learning vocabulary including learning and teaching activities. 
In general, the YLs were eager to join class activity which was a considerable sign of the 
effectiveness of TPR. One possible explanation for this may be because of the increased level of 
YLs motivation in the experimental group in vocabulary learning. Supporting this view was 
Lightbown and Spada (1999), the two researchers claimed that high motivation could gain 
language learners' enthusiasm and get their positive mood to learn the second language. TPR 
brought YLs an interesting experience in their vocabulary learning. Being provided the learning 
atmosphere full of physical movement, which is different from the traditional methods like 
Grammar Translation, the YLs seemed to be motivated and pay more interest in learning 
vocabulary. The TPR activities attract learners' interest, intrinsic motivation, and enhance 
enjoyment in learning. They were designed to be funny, meaningful, and learner-centered, which 
gave the YLs an active role in participation; hence, their motivation increased. 
These findings support the claims made by Hoang (2013), who conducted a study to find 
out the answers for the attitudes of teachers and students towards the teaching and learning 
vocabulary through TPR. It has been found that a stress-free environment allows children to be 
more receptive and motivated to learn the language. 
However, the results reveal that noisy, cluttered learning atmosphere sometimes, the 
repetitive learning activities and the overused imperative drills made YLs boring and dissatisfied. 
Furthermore, some opinions were shown that because of its principal using the imperative, it is of 
limited utility to the learner. More considerably, the findings in terms of the disadvantages of TPR 
collected from responses of the interview in this study mirror those found in the previous research 
of Hoang (2013) and Ummah (2017). 
It can be explained that the disadvantage of TPR is that the imperative and responses do not 
support learners' real-life environment. It leaves out the form of narrative, description, and 
conversation (Tomscha, 1986). Besides, despite the fact that most of YLs agreed that their teachers' 
teaching methods, behavior as well as the way giving feedbacks did have a positive effect on their 
learning; some of her shortcomings were reflected such as: overusing the imperative drills, 
confusingly teaching some items, organizing and managing as well as assessing the students' 
performance. All issues which were raised related to the lack of experience of the teacher in 
organization and management. Moreover, although the teacher herself perceived that she clearly 
understood the principles of TPR, it does not mean that she used TPR in the right way. 
5. Conclusion and implications 
The results of this study have indicated that YLs' vocabulary retention could be enhanced 
by TPR. It was proven by the better performance in the post-test of the experiment group in 
comparison with the control group. In other words, after treated with TPR, the YLs' vocabulary 
retention has been improved. Hopefully speaking, they will gain more confidence in learning 
Ha Dinh Nhu Nguyen et al. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(5), 26-40 39 
English at a higher level of education thanks to TPR method. Moreover, the participants who are 
treated with TPR also had positive attitudes towards the use of TPR in learning English vocabulary. 
 The findings suggest several courses of action for EFL teachers and young English 
learners. For the EFL teachers, they should spend time to investigate the principles, benefits, and 
disadvantages of TPR in teaching vocabulary so that they can apply this method appropriately and 
effectively in their teaching process. To implement the TPR Method successfully, EFL teachers 
should prepare their lessons carefully before going to class. TPR should not be used for teaching 
vocabulary in isolation. Teachers should use this method in enhancing language skills such as 
listening, speaking and writing. Through the practice of skills, YLs may learn and memorize 
vocabulary better. To the English young learners, they should be encouraged to take part in 
activities during the lesson. They should concentrate on activities or assignments provided by the 
teachers so that they can acquire the language more easily under the guidance of the teachers. 
However, the study was limited in several ways. First of all, the time of conducting the 
training experiment in this study was limited. This research was conducted within only a month, 
which means in total in four weeks. Therefore, if the study would be conducted for a longer time, 
it would be desirable to yield more generalizable findings. The second limitation lies within the 
teachers' practice, perception, and own approach in teaching the English Language. That is to say, 
not all the activities relating to TPR were taught during the treatment. Finally, the participants were 
only 62 YLs in only one site of study so the findings may not be generalizable to other sites. 
Tài liệu tham khảo 
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principle. An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New 
York, NY: Person Education. 
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Dagilienė, I. (2012). Translation as a learning method in English language teaching. Studies about 
Languages, 2012(21), 124-129. 
Forero, M. A. V., & Muñoz, M. E. M. (2011). Teaching English vocabulary to third graders 
through the application of the Total Physical Response method. (Unpublished master’s 
thesis). Universidad Technological De Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia. 
Ghani, M. Z., & Hanim, N. H. (2014). The effectiveness of total physical response (TPR) approach 
in helping slow young learners with low achievement acquire English as a second language. 
International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4(6), 156-169. 
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Ltd. 
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Ltd. 
Hoang, D. T. K. (2013). Suggested total physical response activities to teach English vocabulary. 
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Vinh University, Vietnam. 
Krashen, S. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London, UK: Prentice 
Hall International. 
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada. N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford 
University Press. 
40 Nguyen Dinh Nhu Ha et al. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(5), 26-40 
McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 
Press. 
Nation, P. (2011). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York, NY: Newbury House. 
Ngo, A. T. C., & Pham, H. V. P. (2018). The effect of using Total Physical Response on EFL YLs’ 
vocabulary and speaking fluency. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication 
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle 
publishers. 
Octaviany, Y. (2007). The application of total physical response in teaching English vocabulary 
to the fourth graders. (Unpublished bachelor degree of education thesis), State University 
of Semarang, Indonesia. 
Peck, S. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage 
Learning. 
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 
Pujiningsih, N. (2013). Improving students’ English vocabulary by using total physical response. 
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia. 
Qiu, Y. (2016). Research on the application of total physical response approach to vocabulary 
teaching in primary schools. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 5(7), 18-24. 
Refaai, K. I. (2013). Suggested guidelines for using translation in foreign language learning and 
teaching. International Research Journals, 4(1), 12-20. 
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1999). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, 
UK: Cambridge University Press 
Sari, D. M. (2015). The implementation of teaching English vocabulary using Total Physical 
Response at the fifth grade. (Unpublished bachelor degree of education thesis). Universitas 
Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia. 
Sariyati, I. (2013). The effectiveness of TPR method in English vocabulary mastery of elementary 
school children. PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 3(1), 50-64. 
Scott, W. A., & Ytreberg, L. H. (1990). Teaching English to children. London and New York: 
Longman. 
Tomscha, T. (1986). Using TPR communicatively. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of 
the International Association of Teachers of English for Foreign Language, Brighton, 
England. 
Ummah, S. S. (2017). The implementation of TPR (Total Physical Response) method in teaching 
English for early childhood. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities 
Research (ASSEHR), 58, 421-428. 
Zhen, Y. (2011). Using TPR method in teaching English adjectives. (Unpublished doctoral 
dissertation). Kristianstad University, Sweden.