Relationship between Gender and Vocabulary Teaching Methodology among Iranian EFL Children: A Comparison of TPR and Direct Method

Nazgol Nekoui Naeini, Mohsen Shahrokhi


The present study intended to examine the impact of methodology on EFL vocabulary learning of elementary school boys and girls. To achieve this end, 40 elementary female and male students aged 9-10 were selected from among 60 students studying at a language institute in Isfahan, Iran. The students were selected based on the results of an overall language proficiency test as a placement test that had been prepared by the institute that identified students' level of proficiency. They were further divided into two experimental groups. Next, a pretest was used to identify the number of words students knew before treatment. The experimental group A learned vocabulary through Direct Method and in the experimental group B students learned vocabulary through Total Physical Response. After 12 weeks of instruction a post-test was administrated to measure and compare the results of vocabulary learning of two groups after treatment. The data collected were put to statistical analysis using SPSS. The results of t-test showed the positive effect of TPR on learners’ L2 vocabulary knowledge. With regard to the impact of gender on learners’ L2 vocabulary knowledge, findings revealed that there were not any statistically significant differences between the male and female learners’ vocabulary score.

Keywords: Total physical response, direct method, gender, vocabulary, Iranian EFL learners

Full Text:



Abdullah, S. S. (2013). A Contrastive Study of the Grammar Translation and the Direct Methods of Teaching. Retrieved March 18th, 2015, from

Asher, J. (1997). Language by command. The Total Physical Response approach to learning language. Retrieved March 18th, 2015, from

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107, 251-271.

Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. American Educator, 25(1), 24-29.

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 44-62.

Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., Ogle, D., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 524-539.

Boyle, J. P. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning, 37, 273-284.

Cakir, I. (2004). Designing Activities for Young Learners in EFL Classrooms. GU, Gasi Egitim Dergisi,Vol.24, No3, p.10-12.

Castro, R. (2010). A Pilot Study Comparing Total Physical Response Storytelling With the Grammar-Translation Teaching Strategy to Determine Their Effectiveness in Vocabulary Acquisition Among English as a Second Language Adult Learners (Unpublished MA Thesis). School of Education and Counseling Psychology, Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA.

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. C., & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93-120.

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, Zipoli, R. Jr., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breath versus depth. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 1-18.

Crevecoeur, Y. C., Coyne, M. D., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). English Language Learners and English-Only Learners' Response to Direct Vocabulary Instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(1), 51-78.

Edelenbos, P., & Vinjé, M. (2000). The assessment of a foreign language at the end of primary (elementary) education. Language Testing, 17, 144-162.

Grace, C. (2000). Gender differences: Vocabulary retention and access to translations for beginning language learners in CALL. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 214-224.

Handayani, U. T. (2012). Teaching English vocabulary using direct method to Kindergarten students at Kuntum Cemerlang school Bandung. Pendidikan Bahasa, 1(2), 1-5.

Hewitt & Linares (1999). Actividad psicomotriz en el aprendizaje de Ingles para

Hsu, H. C. & Lin, C. H. (2014). The Effects of Total Physical Response on English Functional Vocabulary Learning for Resource Classroom Students in the Elementary School. National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.

Ilham, D. (2009). Teaching Speaking Using Direct Method at Fifth Grade of. SDN 1 Cimerah Tasikmalaya. Retrieved March 18th, 2015, from

Jiménez, R. M. (1992). Errores en la producción escrita del inglés y po-sibles factores condicionantes. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Jiménez, R. M. (1997). Análisis de los intereses sociales y personales de alumnos navarros de secundaria. In R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Ed.), Los temas transversales en la clase de inglés (pp. 7-27). Pamplona: Go-bierno de Navarra. Departamento de Educación y Cultura.

Jiménez, R. M., & Moreno, S. (2004). L2 word associations and the va¬riable sex: An outline according to an electronic tool. In A. R. Celada, D. Pastor, & P. J. García (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International AEDEAN Conference. Salamanca: Editorial Ambos Mundos.

Jiménez, R. M., & Ojeda, J. (2008). The English vocabulary of girls and boys: Evidence from a quantitative study. In L. Litosseliti, H. Sauton, K. Harrington, & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Theoretical and methodologi¬cal approaches to gender and language study (pp. 103-115). London/ New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jiménez, R. M., & Ojeda, J. (2009). Girls’ and boys’ lexical a-Availability in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(8), 57-76.

Jiménez, R. M., & Terrazas, M. (2008). The receptive vocabulary of EFL young learners. Journal of English Studies, 6, 173-191.

Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 17–32.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pengamon Press.

Levine, L. N. (2005). Unique Characteristics of Young Learners. Retrieved March 18th, 2015, from /UniqueCharacteristics_HO_LNLTESOLArabia05.pdf.

Li, C. (2010). Application of total physical response in children‘s ESL education. Retrieved March 18th, 2015, from handle/1793/43593/Chen,%20Li.pdf1

Llach, M. D. P. A., & Gallego, M. T. (2012). Vocabulary knowledge development and gender differences in a second language. Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada, 12, 45-76.

Lynn, R., Fergusson, D., & Horwood, L. J. (2005). Sex differences on the WISCR in New Zealand. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 103-114.

Machova, J. (2009). Application of Total Physical Response method in teaching fifth form pupils of primary school. Retrieved March 18th, 2015, from

McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: OUP.

Meara, P., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex 30: An improved method of as¬sessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System, 28, 19-30.

Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in adult language learning: Socialization and memory factors. Modern Language Journal, 74, 273-287.

Oktiana, N. (2013). Teaching English vocabulary by using total physical response method at SDN bandungkulon. Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 1(1), 1-5.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23–33.

Pujiningsih, N. (2010). Improving Students’ Vocabulary By Using Total Physical Response. MA thesis, Surakarta: English Education Department Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University.

Purcell, J. M. (1992). Using songs to enrich the secondary class. Hispania, 75(1), 192-196.

Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 139-153.

Sariyati, I. (2013). The Effectiveness of TPR (Total Physical Response) Method in English Vocabulary Mastery of Elementary School Children. PAROLE-Journal of Linguistics and Education, 3(1), 50-64.

Silverman, R. D. (2007).Vocabulary development of English-language and English-only learners in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 365–383.

Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 305–314.

Sunderland, J. (2010). Theorizing gender perspectives in foreign and se¬cond language learning. In R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Ed.), Gender pers¬pectives on vocabulary in foreign and second languages (pp. 1-22). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Walsh, B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The effect of questioning style during storybook reading on novel vocabulary acquisition of preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(4), 273–278.

Wanzek, J. (2014). Building word knowledge: Opportunities for direct vocabulary instruction in general education for students with reading difficulties. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(2), 139-148.

Scarcella, R., & Zimmerman, C. (1998). Academic words and gender. ESL student performance on a test of academic lexicon. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 27-49.

Thornbury, Scott. How to Teach Vocabulary. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 2002. 185 s.

Wu Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Voca¬bulary in language teaching (pp. 116-141). Cambridge: Cambridge Language Education.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.