Chris I did find a few studies Dr. Krashen sent me last year:
Two Recent Studies
In both cases, TPRS was compared to traditional methodology for first year Spanish as a foreign language students in high school.
Varguez, K. 2009. Traditional and TPR Storytelling instrucion in beginning high school Spanish classroom. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5 (1): 2-11.
Watson, B. 2009. A comparison of TPRS and traditional foreign language instruction at the high school level. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5 (1): 21-24.
- Teacher philosophy aligned with class taught, traditional vs. TPRS.
- All students true beginners.
- Low SES TPRS had student teacher for a part of the year.
- TPRS significantly better than comparisons (t = 10.56, p < .0001).
- Low SES TPRS class not significantly different from comparisons (t = .62, not sig.)
TPRS low SES
Measure: combination of listening and reading
2 comparison class results combined
Effect size: TPRS vs. Comp = .49
- 4% of TPRS students used Spanish outside of school, 15% of traditional students.
- TPRS teacher asked far more questions, used Spanish far more, class was more teacher-fronted.
- Students in both classes reported doing similar amounts of homework and both classes included reading. The traditional class read Pobre Ana as homework, TPRS read Pobre Ana and Patricia va a California in class.
- TPRS significantly better than comparisons (t = 4.06, p = .0001).
Measure: combination of listening, vocabulary/grammar (fill-in-the blank in sentences) and reading
2 TPRS class results combined
Similar results obtained in oral examination
Effect size: TPRS vs. Comp = 1.02
- When classes are of equal SES, TPRS is a clear winner. Effect sizes were modest (.49) and large (1.02).
- A low SES TPRS class with a student teacher for part of the time did as well as traditional instruction.
- Watson’s results may be understated because a larger percentage of traditional students reporte using Spanish outside of class (eg at home).