Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 13. Number3. September 2022 Pp.339-355
Psychological and Pedagogical Implements of Communicative Language Teaching and
Total Physical Response Methods
Applied English Department, Faculty of Arts
Palestine Ahliya University (PAU), Bethlehem, Palestine
Corresponding Author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Salem Saleh Ibnian
English Language and Literature Department,
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
The World Islamic Sciences and Education University (WISE)
Received:06/18/2022 Accepted: 08/29/2022 Published: 09/24/2022
The current study aims at investigating the psychological and pedagogical implements of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and the Total Physical Response (TPR) in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). The main focus of this study is on the principles and techniques of these two teaching methods, in addition to their psychological and pedagogical implements in EFL classes. The study, which follows the descriptive-analytical method, also scrutinizes the techniques utilized showing their crucial role in transferring the teachers’ role from knowledge importing to stimulators for interactive learning. The main results showed that the use of these two methods could play an active role in enhancing learners’ dependency, minimizing their shyness, raising their motivation, and activating both hemispheres of the brain. Some psychological and pedagogical implements and recommendations have been stated at the end of the study.
Keywords: Authenticity, Communicative Language Teaching, Total Physical Response, pedagogical
and psychological domains
Cite as: Mahmoud Itmeizeh, M., & Ibnian, S. S. (2022). Psychological and Pedagogical Implements of Communicative Language Teaching and Total Physical Response Methods. Arab World English Journal, 13 (3) 339-355.
AL-Garni, S.,&Almuhammadi, A. (2019). The Effect of Using Communicative Language Teaching Activities on EFL Students’ Speaking Skills at the University of Jeddah, English Language Teaching; 12(6), 72-86.
Alhomaidan, A.,&Alshammari, A. (2016). The Effect of Using Total Physical Response Method on Teaching English Vocabulary: A Study in a Saudi College-Level Context, International Journal of Research and Review, 3(11), 59-68.
Arlette J., &Hounhanou, V. (2019). Promoting TPR (Total Physical Response) Method in Teaching Vocabulary for EFL Beginners in Benin Secondary Schools, International Journal of Applied Linguistics &English Literature, IJALEL, 9(6), 23-31
Asassfeh, S.,Khwaileh, F., Al-Shaboul, Y., &Alshboul,S. (2012). Communicative language teaching in an EFL context: Learners’ attitudes and perceived implementation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 525-535
Asher, J. (2007). TPR: After forty years, still a very good idea. Available athttp://www.tpr-world.com/japan-article.html
Asher, J. (1968). The total physical response method for second language learning. Available
Cheng, W. (2015). A case study of action research on communicative language teaching. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 18(6), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2015.1108075
Forero, M., & Muñoz, 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.
Gusmuliana, P. (2018). The Use of Total Physical Response Strategy at Junior High School of SLBN South Curup, RejangLebong, Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 2(2), 115-136.
Howatt, A., &Widdowson, H. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ilmi, P., & Anwar, K. (2022). Students’ Perception of Total Physical Response Method in Teaching English Vocabulary at Ban Nonsawan School, Thailand. JOLLT Journal of languages and Language Teaching, 10(2), pp. 266-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v%vi%i.4989
Incecay, G.,&Incecay, V. (2009). Turkish university students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 618-622.
Jeyasala, V. (2014). A prelude to practice: Interactive activities for effective communication in English. Alternative pedagogies in the English language & communication classroom, 164-170.Paper presented at the 4th CELC Symposium Singapore: Centre for the English Language Communication National University of Singapore.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using Attitude Scales to Investigate Teachers’ Attitudes to the Communicative Approach. ELT Journal, 50, 187-196.
Khalil, L., &Semono-Eke, B. (2020). Appropriate Teaching Methods for General English and English for Specific Purposes from Teachers’ Perspectives. Arab World English Journal, 11(1) 253-269. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.19
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D.,&Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. ISBN:978 0 19 442360 1
Laes, A. (2018). Using Total Physical Response (TPR) in Teaching English to Young Learners. Available athttp://wonderfulgrey.blogspot.com/2018/06/using-total-physical-response-tpr-in.html
Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 677-703.
Ngo, A., &Pham, H. (2018). The Effect of Using Total Physical Response (TPR) on EFL Young Learners’ Vocabulary and Speaking Fluency. Conference Proceedings, 128-137. ISBN: 978-604-922-659-5
Noori, A. (2018). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) In EFL Context: Exploring Afghan EFL Lecturers’ Perceived Challenges in Implementing CLT. International Journal of Research, 5 (16), 1049-1063.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295.
Nuraeni, C. (2019). Using Total Physical Response (TPR) Method on Young Learners English Language Teaching, Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 3(1), 26-34.DOI: 10.31002/metathesis. V3i1.1223
Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The Use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties in Implementation in Turkey, (Unpublished Master’s thesis). the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Richards, J., &Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santos, L. (2020). The Discussion of Communicative Language Teaching Approach in Language Classrooms. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(2), 104-109.DOI: 10.20448/journal.509.2020.72.104.109
Savignon, S. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.09.004
Sariyati, I. (2013). The effectiveness of the TPR method in English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children. PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 3(1), 50-64.
Shi, T. (2018). A Study of the TPR Method in the Teaching of English to Primary School Students, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(8), 1088.
Tompkins, P. (1998). Role-playing/Simulation. The Internet TESOL Journal, 4(8), 143-150.
Zhen, Y. (2011). Using TPR Method in Teaching English Adjectives, (Unpublished Master’s thesis).Kristianstad University, Sweden.