This is an unpopular position, but then again, I’m kind of known for them.
MovieTalk is not, IMHO, properly part of TPRS. It’s fine to do if it’s done properly, but it is not TPRS and it, again IMHO, should not be taken as a replacement for TPRS. One more IMHO for good measure: MovieTalk should be used as a dessert, not as the main course of, well, the course. đ  And the chef (teacher) should know how to cook main courses (do classical TPRS). A pastry-chef only approach is not going to make a successful restaurant.
The reason is this. TPRS works because of comprehensible input, but the reason that works is that kids are listening. They listen because the topics of TPRS are either the kids themselves or things the kids are proposing to talk about. They have a very high degree of creator ownership in the stories asked or read in class.
MovieTalk by its definition depends on a preset storyline (unless you turn it off suddenly and ask kids to tell the ending, which moves you back into TPRS really). The kids had no voice in creating that, and it is not customized to them in any way. A skilled MovieTalk teacher can certainly elicit details and impose them on that storyline or characters, like having the kids name them and so on, but the visual is still set. There’s no way for the class to “decide” what the character is wearing — he is wearing what’s right in front of them. Ditto the locations (unless it’s a very visually-open-ended thing like a minimalist animation), the actions, and so on. MovieTalk is destined because of these things to be at a lower level of personalization or customization than story-asking.
But MovieTalk is easier than classical TPRS because it doesn’t require the creation of a storyline in cooperation with a classful of kids. It doesn’t require as much personalization or customization (though as said it’s better with those things going on). The circling questions can be entirely pre-planned becuase the story will NOT deviate any more than a train will start running eastward if it’s on a set of tracks going north. But the “hook” is the flashy video (flashy in the sense that it’s a tech toy kind of thing, I mean) with the animation or the effect or the music or whatever things are there. That scares me. I don’t want my hook to be external, ever. I want my hook into those kids’ heads to be the heads themselves — the things that kids truly care about. The lifespan of a cute video as an attention-grabber and more importantly an attention-keeper may be longer or shorter depending on a whole bunch of things that I probably don’t even know about
Sure, videos are things that kids like. Their topics, and their cute design, and all that, those are also things that kids like. But the whole point and power of TPRS is that there’s nothing, NOTHING, that kids like more than….themselves. If teachers (and many teachers are doing this these days) only do MovieTalk, or do MovieTalk as a replacement for TPRS because TPRS is “hard” or because they haven’t quite “gotten” TPRS yet, they are relying on the drawing power of that video. And one day that is going to fail.
Now, you can achieve personalization by doing parallel discussion with a MovieTalk. But that ends up being…PQA. Which is TPRS.
Don’t forget that kids usually throw the fancy toys aside eventually. The thing they can play with for hours is the boxes. Because it’s about their imagination and creativity and themselves.
Hi Terry,
Good point. Right now, I’m teaching English to native-Chinese speakers, and am using TRPS, personal readings, and Movie Talk regularly each week. I like the way you describe Movie Talk as dessert, it wouldn’t work to eat it all the time, but it is a nice way to unwind.
In general, my students are fairly reserved and aren’t very eager to act or giving ideas for stories. Simply put, their just a bit more reserved. For this, I find Movie Talk to be really helpful. It gives the class a common culture where one was lacking They tend to get really into the characters, and will be more willing to pull them into our stories than something from outside of class. Last week in TPRS, two boys from class were on the beach with Mr. Bean looking for chocolate bunnies and jelly beans on a easter egg hunt.
I think the really power of Movie Talk is that it quickly and effectively loads students up with a massive amount of really fun nouns. Movie Talking Jumanji gave my students crocodile, mosquito, jungle man, hunter, shoe factory, roll the dice, and monkeys on a motorcycle. After picking those up, I feel like students have a lot more to offer when we get into the three steps of TPRS.
The drawback of Movie Talk, and I think you hit on this, is that it is harder to get structures to really sink in. Isolated, crazy nouns… “piece of cake” (also from Jumanji). Repetitions of common structures… not as easy. One thing I have found, however, is that students can master structures more easily in Movie Talk if I write them on the board and establish meaning before we start. “Roll the dice” came in really clear this way. I think one time I wrote “the monkey burned himself” on the board when I paused the movie when a monkey broke a kitchen stove. Honestly, while it was funny for everyone, I don’t feel like it really sunk in as well as when structures are introduced before the movie.
Another fun way to work repetitions into movie talk, is to have students tell you the story while you write it on the board. Variations of the movie often occur, which does make things more meaningful. Last year, the students made a story in which they visited the museum from Night at the Museum. While it was fun to write that up, I feel like more could have done more with that, like retelling with a partner. The screen select function of DVDs is also good for a quick retell activity.
I think Movie Talk has a lot of potential for vocabulary development and creating a classroom culture, but, you’re right, 18 pounds of chocolate cake everyday wouldn’t get the job done.
Thanks for doing what you do,
Daniel
I’ll bet, too, that working with Chinese students, you’re not teaching zero beginners (are you?) That makes a difference as well. Chinese “audiences” can be very tough for contributing, well, anything. I remember back in the bad old days, trying to write information gap exercises they wouldn’t know the answers to. They lived six to a room in the dorms. There was NOTHING they didn’t know about each other already… đ
That’s pretty close to what I have.
In terms of levels, my class is fairly mixed between absolute beginners all the way up to intermediate (almost advanced) learners. At first I was worried about the mixed levels, but its actually been a real boon. I tend to slow down more because of the beginners, but am able to add more details without putting folks into overload because the more advanced students are always eager to contribute and translate new content.
Yesterday, our story generated 15 new content words outside of the three structures. The more advanced students gave most of the details (a 10-meter tall soccer player, a chicken fish taking a nap, ect.), but the beginning students — mostly in the silent period still — were able to remember the meaning of all of them the next day. I usually don’t test them on content outside of the structures, but quizzing them on all those random content words today made me realize how much is actually going in via the comprehensible input.
I think this is another advantage to being in a TPRS classroom. When we ask for story ideas, students often try to recycle words they already know. This is like a form of Non-Action, low-tech spaced repetition.
I guess that’s the other great thing about Movie Talk, a great deal of high frequency vocabulary and fun content word are recycled again and again. It’s helpful when students bring these things into our stories because it gives them a chance to see these things in print form.