Why I Quit TPRS
I wrote this yesterday after a long discussion with a teacher about TPRS. It feels good to finally put it into writing:
Q. The thing is, I’ve never felt very confident at TPRS.
A. No one has, but I will set that idea aside for now. My goal here in this discussion is simply to share my transition from TPRS to OWIs after an extended search for what works best for me; I hope to outline the reasoning and methods behind this shift for those who may find it helpful.
Q. Could you at least briefly address the reason TPRS failed for you?
A. The evolution of the TPRS movement was compromised when it allowed itself to be mixed with the traditional textbook model. By structuring comprehensible input around rigid vocabulary lists—a practice inconsistent with acquisition research—the methodology lost its ability to engage students. Ultimately, the attempt to force TPRS into a traditional pedagogical framework led to its systemic failure.
Q. That’s a pretty charged comment…
A. I stand by it. Rather than letting language expand naturally from simple, shared ideas into rich conversation, classroom communication became bogged down by rigid vocabulary lists. Around 2003, TPRS shifted toward using comprehensible input specifically to force-feed these word lists, relying on scripted lessons instead of following the research on natural acquisition. This mechanical approach proved awkward and dull, failing to engage students while leaving well-intentioned teachers burnt out and frustrated.
Q. It sounds like the textbook…
A. Yes. Mixing targeted words with TPRS extinguishes the free communication that makes language learning feel real. Students withdrew because the “required” words felt like a chore rather than a tool for expression. Instead of being active participants in an ever-expanding natural conversation that they cared about, students became passive recipients of information that lacked any real-world meaning to them.
Q. Was that the main issue with TPRS?
A. It’s just one of several. The real distinction is between teaching scripted words that they “need to know” vs. using the far more open OWI template, which has been much more effective for me and my students in our Saturday trainings.
Q. So it was the use of CI to teach certain words from word lists that caused you to quit TPRS?
A. I stopped using TPRS because forcing specific word lists into the CI framework made my teaching feel stale. It stifled the natural, spontaneous flow of conversation with my students. As Krashen’s Input Hypothesis suggests, language sticks when the messages are meaningful, but not when you’re just grinding through a pre-set list of vocabulary.
Q. And that was it?
A. That was it. I didn’t feel a genuine connection with my students until I moved away from scripted instruction. My OWI template provides a framework for authentic language to flourish because it doesn’t dictate what must be said. When you stop focusing on specific “target words,” you finally align with the research on how language is actually learned.
Q. What do you think are the main takeaways here?
A. That is an excellent question and we can wrap this topic up with it. First, engagement is everything; we can’t reach screen-focused students without content that actually interests them. Second, avoid being scripted. Pre-planned lessons, words that they “need to know”, crush the chance for the natural, spontaneous conversation that really drives language learning.
Q. Anything else?
A. And also think of the word template as probably the most important word in this discussion. A template provides golden railroad tracks down which our communication trains can happily roll because there is room in its cars for lots of new words! And why should we want empty cars on our communication train? It is because when those cars are not all loaded up with words that your students “have to learn”, then you are free to drive the communication into topics that hold their interest in class. That’s the key to making your language instruction interesting and that is what the OWI template does!
Q. That’s a good metaphor!
A. I could extend it even further by pointing out that many of us, when we go into our buildings each day, feel like train engineers who have to get their train to chug up a mountain, fighting with kids in a kind of mental warfare that only teachers know about, instead of rolling down the mountain effortlessly so that by the end of the day we are energized and not exhausted. And when our instruction is interesting, classroom management problems tend to vanish!
Q. This has been a very interesting discussion. Could you close with a concluding comment so that I can fully understand why you have chosen to work only with OWIs in the future?
A. How about this: The problem with blending targeted vocabulary with TPRS is that it wiped out the connection we had with our students. We shifted the focus to “must-know” words rather than the things they actually cared about. It’s no wonder they were bored; they just wanted to talk about their own worlds, and we didn’t let them.