ELT Oxford Journal
ELT Oxford Journal
ELT Oxford Journal
This article charts the chequered history of the PPP model (Presentation,
Practice, Production) in English language teaching, told partly through
reference to articles in ELT Journal. As well as documenting its origins at
the dawn of communicative language teaching (and not in audiolingual
approaches, as some have suggested), I chart its history through the 1980s,
discuss key criticisms directed at it in the 1990s, and also document its close
relationship with ELT coursebook syllabi ever since its emergence. Recent
evidence from second language acquisition research in support of explicit,
practice-oriented instruction such as PPP is also discussed, along with other
recent references to the model, suggesting not only that it can no longer be
rejected as incompatible with research evidence, but that it may be enjoying
a revival in its fortunes.
Introduction
For many English language teachers and teacher educators, the PPP model
needs little introduction. Standing for Presentation, Practice, Production,1
it is used in ELT as a prescriptive framework for the structuring of new
language lessons (especially grammar and functional language, but also
lexis), and is well known from its use both on short initial teacher training
courses such as the Cambridge CELTA and Trinity CertTESOL, and in
more extensive pre-service teacher education programmes worldwide. Still
popular over 40years after it first emerged (Harris 2015), it has proven to
be remarkably durable. In the light of recent literature in support of PPP,
both methodological (Arnold, Drnyei, and Pugliese 2015) and empirical
(Spada and Tomita 2010), this article traces the origins of PPP and its
fortunes over these four decades, and investigates potential influences on
its longevity. Drawing inspiration from Hunter and Smith (66/4: 4309,
2012),2 both statistical data and qualitative evidence from ELT Journal are
drawn upon to chart and analyse changes in attitudes in articles referring
to PPP since its emergence. Theoretical arguments and research evidence
supporting and opposing its use are also discussed in order to tell the
story of the history of the PPP model in communicative language teaching
(CLT).
The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Page 1 of 10
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
Jason Anderson
Page 2 of 10
Jason Anderson
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
PPPs popularity in
the1980s
As the demand for English language teachers grew in the late 1970s
and early 1980s, Teaching Oral English (Byrne op.cit.) became one
of the most popular handbooks on initial teacher training courses,
and PPP gained popularity (see Figure1). Similar models could be
found in other influential works of the era (for example Harmers
(1983: 557) first edition of The Practice of English Language Teaching),
characterizing what Howatt (op.cit.: 279)called the weak version
of the communicative approach. However, it was PPP that was to
remain dominant during this period. First reference to it in ELT Journal
appears in 1983, in a review by Rossner (37/1: 99101, 1983)of an early
book by Jane Willis. Henotes:
1
References to four planning
frameworks in ELT Journal
(19762015).3 Note:
OHE stands for Observe,
Hypothesise, Experiment;
ARC stands for Authentic
(practice), Restricted
(practice), Clarification;
and ESA stands for Engage,
Study, Activate
figure
Page 3 of 10
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
Notably progressive for 1973, this extract would not look out of place
on a handout on contemporary initial teacher training courses. It is no
coincidence that Pit Corders (1967) paper on error correction, one of the
most seminal works in the history of both second language acquisition
(SLA) research and CLT, was published under the stimulus of work being
done by the same Julian Dakin (Howatt op.cit.: 284). Dakin sadly died at
an early age, just before the publication of his book, but Byrne (op.cit.: 2)
carried forward this tolerance to learner errors in his account of PPP,
noting, It is not that mistakes do not matter, but rather that free
expression matters much more, and the greatest mistake the teacher can
make is to hold his students back (italics in original). Both Dakin and
Byrne were questioning, if not rejecting, the then-dominant audiolingual
approach to errors and their correction, providing a justification for
freer language practice opportunities that would pave the way for more
communicative activities in the classroom.
[PPP] should not of course be interpreted too literally: these stages are not
recipes for organising all our lessons Since our main aim is to get the
learners to communicate, we can reverse the sequence outlined above by
first setting them tasks which will require them to communicate as best
they can with the language at their disposal and then using the outcome
as a way of deciding what new language needs to be presented and
perhaps further practised. (Op.cit.: 3; italics in original)
However, this more flexible interpretation by Byrne of his own model
attracted little support and did not stem the increasing criticism being
levelled at PPP.
2
Orientation of articles,
reviews, and other pieces
towards PPP in ELT Journal
(19812015)4
figure
Page 4 of 10
Jason Anderson
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
PPPs compatibility
with ELT
coursebooks
It may be (and often is) argued that one potential explanation for
PPPs durability in our profession, and to some extent for its frequency
of mention in ELT Journal, derives from its compatibility with the
grammatical syllabi often used to structure ELT coursebooks and
grammar practice books. Fortunes (op.cit.) negative appraisal of PPP
in the latter has already been mentioned, for example. In three separate
analyses of coursebooks (Tomlinson, Dat, Masuhara, and Rubdy 55/1:
80101, 2001; Masuhara, Hann, Yi, and Tomlinson 62/3: 294312, 2008;
Tomlinson and Masuhara 67/2: 23349, 2013), Tomlinson, Masuhara,
and colleagues have attempted to evaluate the efficacy of mainstream ELT
Page 5 of 10
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
A more recent
change in fortune
forPPP
While early SLA research (as referred to by Tomlinson etal. op.cit. above)
supported the inclusion of consciousness-raising, noticing, inductive
discovery learning, and integrated form-focused instruction, yet did not
support more explicit, practice-oriented instruction such as PPP, since the
turn of the century, two extensive, robust meta-analyses conducted into
the effectiveness of explicit and implicit approaches have both reached
a rather different conclusion, presenting findings strongly in favour of
explicit instruction (Norris and Ortega 2000; Spada and Tomita op.cit.)
and finding focus on forms-type instruction such as PPP no less effective
than alternatives. Spada and Tomita (op.cit.: 287), somewhat understatedly
given the significant effect sizes they found (d=.88 and d=.73, for
Page 6 of 10
Jason Anderson
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
Page 7 of 10
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
forward into the practices of novice teachers, along with PPP. Thus,
while it may have been the case in the 1970s and 1980s that the blanket
dominance of PPP in initial teacher training was having a negative
effect on classroom practice, Harriss (op.cit.) research indicates that
most training courses, and most novice teachers today, seem to adopt a
healthy balance of different frameworks.
Page 8 of 10
Jason Anderson
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
While this may sound like a compromise for notions of best practice
in language teaching, we should recall that the balance of more recent
evidence from SLA research (see above) indicates that there are no
empirical grounds for such a rejection.
Conclusion
Notes
1 In this article, the three stages of PPP are
envisaged as follows:
Presentation: language features (including
grammar, lexis, and functional exponents) are
selected and sequenced in advance for explicit
instruction, typically involving contextualized
presentation followed by elicited clarification of
meaning, form, and use.
Page 9 of 10
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016
With the help of ELT Journal, this brief foray into the origins and history
of PPP has documented its very un-audiolingual genesis. Not only did
PPP originate at the dawn of CLT, but it became a core component in
the realization of the weak version of CLT, the version that has proven to
be the most practically viable in language classrooms and ELT materials
to date. Ihave also charted its troubled history during the 1990s,
demonstrated its longevity and durability, and suggested a number of
reasons for its appeal, including its simplicity, its compatibility with ELT
coursebooks, and its association with skill learning theory. Importantly,
Ihave also suggested that SLA research often cited to reject PPP has more
recently begun to support it, providing evidence that perhaps the many
teachers who have found it effective are not misguided after all. Writing in
2003, Widdowson (op.cit.: 131)suggested that PPP has endured because
teachers genuinely believed in it, and found some basis of their belief in
their classroom experience. Today they can also argue for a basis in SLA
research findings.
References
Anderson, J. 2016. Why practice makes perfect
sense: the past, present and potential future of the
PPP paradigm in language teacher education. ELT
Education and Development 19: 1422.
Arnold, J., Z.Drnyei, and C.Pugliese. 2015. The
Principled Communicative Approach. London:
Helbling.
Byrne, D. 1976/1986. Teaching Oral English. Harlow:
Longman.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners
errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching 5/4: 16170.
Dakin, J. 1973. The Language Laboratory and Language
Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Page 10 of 10
Jason Anderson
The author
Jason Anderson is a teacher, teacher trainer,
educational consultant, and author of books for
language teachers. He has taught languages, trained
teachers, and developed materials to support teachers
in primary, secondary, and tertiary contexts, both
pre-service and in-service, in 15 countries (in Africa,
Europe, and Asia) for organizations including
UNICEF, the British Council, and VSO. In 2016, he
won the British Council ELTON Local Innovation
award for Teaching English in Africa, a practical
guide for primary and secondary teachers of English
that draws on expertise from across the continent to
offer practical support for novice teachers working in
Africa.
Email: jasonanderson1@gmail.com
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept University Libraries Northern Illinois University on August 7, 2016