Language Teaching Models

(PPP, ESA, TBLT)

Introduction

• Teaching methods and models may vary regarding the

needs and expectations of learners in any teaching
environment. In teacher training process, the trainee
becomes familiar with those methods and models. Such
different methods and models are introduced to evoke
awareness about how a lesson plan is designed and in
what sequence the activities of the plan are proposed.
Before reviewing the language teaching models for both
trainers and trainees in the relevant literature of this
paper, it is necessary to deal with the concept of
sequencing with reference to instructional contexts.
• The ordering of activities within a lesson or a unit is
related with the term sequencing. However, it should not
be confused with the concept of grading. According to
Nunan (1988), grading refers to the arrangement of
syllabus content from easy to difficult. It can be
concluded that grading refers to difficulty as the
parameter of the ordering. On the other hand,
sequencing refers to the overall arrangement of that
syllabus content by means of several criteria, one of
which is difficulty (grading), the other being frequency,
learnability, usefulness and learners’ communicative
needs.
CONT

• The concepts put forward above explain the

terminological and conceptual differences between
grading and sequencing. It is now pertinent to examine
the presence of sequencing as an activity ordering in
foreign language teaching (FLT) literature. Activity
sequencing in FLT is usually formed by a model. The term
‘model’ which is directly related with sequencing in FLT
literature is “used to describe typical procedures or sets
of procedures, usually for teachers in training” (Harmer,
2001, p.79).
• Many language teaching programs have a teaching model
for their understanding of the methodology, and a
trainee is almost always trained in accordance with that
model. The models are designed to guide teaching
practice. They guide especially inexperienced teachers
or trainees in training. According to Harmer (2001), their
purpose is pedagogic in terms of training, rather than
inspirational as statements of theoretical belief.
CONT

• Model is labeled differently by various scholars in FLT literature.

For instance, Woodward (2001) and Harmer (1996, 2001) use the
term model, while Scrivener (1994, 1996) calls it a training model
and a paradigm. On the other hand, McCarty and Carter (1995)
refer it as a methodology. In line with the concepts, D. Willis
(1996a, 1996b) also approaches the issue of activity sequencing as
paradigm, approach, methodology, cycle and sequence, while J.
Willis refers to it as a cycle and an approach (1996a, 1996b).
CONT

• With the help of a model, an inexperienced teacher or a trainee

has a chance to select from a wide variety of activities. In this
respect, models just guide the order of activities in a lesson or a
unit. However, they differ from methods in that a method is a
strict procedure for both selecting and presenting the activities in
order. In addition to this, there is no more choice to select from,
while using a method.
CONT

• Some models reflect a specific order for a lesson schema such as,
PPP, TBLT, OHE, III and TTT; while others are operational and
flexible within a cycle such as ESA and ARC. In the next section,
these common models wCONTill be dealt with
1. PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production)

• The PPP model is the most common and traditional methodology

employed by both professional programs and course books around
the world. The three Ps stands for Presentation (P1), Practice (P2)
and Production (P3). Harmer (2007) points out that the PPP
procedure has been offered to teacher trainees as a significant
procedure since 1960s, although it was not then referred to as
PPP. However, it can be inferred from literature that the pioneer
of the PPP model was Donn Byrne (1976).
• While Richards and Rodgers (2001) link the PPP model to
Situational Language Teaching, Harmer (2001, 2007) links it to a
variation of Audio-lingualism. In fact, the PPP model is a mixture
in that it carries the characteristics of Situational Language
Teaching especially at presentation stage and behaviorism at
practice stage. Interestingly, certain researchers; for instance,
Howatt (2004), ascribes the production stage alone to
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
• structure in a situation contextualizing it. In the practice stage,
learners practice the structure using accurate reproduction
techniques including choral and individual repetition and cue-
response drills. Finally, the production stage is more meaning-
focused and communication-oriented, where learners are
encouraged to use the new language and make sentences of their
own (Harmer, 2001, 2007).
• The original model has been developed and modified since it was
first introduced to FLT literature (Lindsay & Knight, 2006). Evans
(1999, p.1) also states that “PPP has evolved over the years,
cherry picking the more attractive elements of other approaches,
and incorporating them into its basic format”. Some scholars think
that the PPP model is still appropriate for language classes, and
they attribute this to the following arguments:
• 1. The PPP model correlates with the Anderson’s skill acquisition model / Information
processing model (Anderson, 1983, 1987, 2005).
• 2. If well- designed, the presentation stage makes learners notice the new language forms
(Hedge, 2000).
• 3. The output in the practice and production stages makes learners
• a) notice the gaps in their interlanguage.
• b) hypothesize testing
• c) aware of metalinguistic function (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005)
• d) develop automaticity (Skehan, 1998)
• Apart from these arguments for the PPP model, The PPP model came under a sustained attack
in the 1990s (Harmer, 2007). The arguments against the PPP model can be summarized as
follows:
• 1. The PPP model is based on discrete items (Scrivener, 1994; Woodward, 1993).
• 2. It encourages accuracy over fluency (Willis, 1993).
• 3. It does not allow for recycling or movement between the different stages (Scrivener, 1994).
• 4. PPP is compatible with a structural syllabus, whereas a skill-based syllabus can be exploited
in the units with the basic pre-, while-, post- sequence (Hedge, 2000).
• 5. It is less workable at higher levels when students need to compare and contrast several
grammatical items at the same time.
• 6. It neglects three very important second language learning principles:
• a) readiness to learn
• b) the delayed effect of instruction
• c) the silent period
• In response to these criticisms, many scholars have offered variations on PPP and alternatives
to it (Harmer, 2007). The alternatives to the PPP model are OHE, III, TTT, TBLT, ESA and ARC.
2. OHE (Observe, Hypothesize, Experiment)

• One of the language awareness-based models of language teaching

is the OHE, which stands for Observe, Hypothesize, and
Experiment. It incorporates awareness sessions into the teaching
process. According to Lewis (1993, 1996), learners should be
allowed to observe the language (read or listen to the language),
hypothesize about how the language works and experiment to
check the correctness of the previous hypothesis. In this respect,
language awareness refers to the inductive teaching process.
• Lewis (1993, 1996) claimed that language teaching should not be
solely based on lexicalized grammar (where the priority is given to
a grammar item, while lexis is necessary only to put this
grammatical structure into work), but rather grammaticalised
lexis, with language consisting of words, multi-word units, lexical
chunks, combined into sentences, paragraphs and texts. The
consequence was the shift in the types of tasks and the balance
between vocabulary practice and grammar practice.
3. ESA (Engage, Study, Activate)

• A different trilogy of teaching sequence is the ESA, which stands for Engage,
Study and Activate (Harmer 1996, 1998, 2001). During the Engage stage, the
teacher tries to arouse the students’ interests (Harmer, 2001, p.84). In this
respect, “unless students are engaged emotionally, their learning will be less
effective”. This contrasts with the traditional PPP model in that the PPP model
has always assumed that students come to lessons already motivated to listen or
engage. The Study stage involves conscious attention to linguistic forms.
Harmer (1996) equates it to the explanation and Practice of the PPP model. In
this stage, the focus is on how something is constructed, whether it is a
grammatical structure, a specific intonation pattern, the construction of a
paragraph or text, the way a lexical phrase is made and used, or the collocation
of a particular word. As for the Activate stage, the activities and tasks are
designed to get what the students know and to use the language as
communicatively as they can (Harmer, 2007).
• ESA offers more flexible lessons allowing the lessons move
between different stages. Harmer (1996, 1998, 2001) offers three
types of lessons provided by the different ordering of Engage,
Study and Activate. The first one is the straight arrow in which
the lesson sequence is ESA. A Boomerang procedure, on the other
hand, is equated with the TBLT procedure in which the lesson
follows EAS. The last lesson procedure is the Patchwork lesson
which involves a variety of sequences. An example for this
sequence can be EASAES.
4. TBLT (Task-based Language Teaching)

• TBLT developed early in 1980s as an approach to language

teaching within the ‘strong’ version of CLT. The strong version
stresses that students must use their communicative capacities in
order to learn the language (Howatt, 2004). In order to realize
that communicative capacity, many forms of TBLT have been
proposed (Prabhu, 1987; Nunan, 1989, 2004; Pica Kanagy, &
Falodun, 1993; Willis, 1996a, 1996b). However, the most well-
known model of task implementation in the teacher training
programs was devised by Willis (1993, 1996a, 1996b).
• In TBLT, students are presented with a task they have to perform or a
problem they have to solve. Typically, TBLT consists of three stages: the
Pre-task, the Task cycle and the Language focus. In the Pre-task stage,
the teacher explores the topic with the class. Useful lexical items may
be highlighted. In addition to this, a recording of a similar / the same
task may be given to the learners to help them understand what they
will do with the task itself (Harmer, 2001). The Task-cycle can be broken
down into three stages, too. The task stage in which learners perform
the task, the planning stage as to how they will report to the class and
the report stage when they report what and how they did the task orally
or in writing. As the last stage, Language focus consists of analysis and
practice. In the analysis, the learners examine lexical items or structures
in the recording or text. In addition to this, the teacher may provide
Practice for that lexical item or structure (Willis, 1996b).
• Although Willis (1996a) claims that TBLT cannot be identified with
a PPP upside down - because “it is more flexible and offers
students far richer learning opportunities”, it can be correlated
with the PPP model: Pre-task (Presentation), Task cycle
(Production), Language focus (Practice).
• TBLT is not without its shortcomings. Ellis (2004) handles the issue
as follows:
• 1. TBLT may not be well-suited to cultural contexts: Task-based
teaching implies a particular cultural context that may be in
conflict with cultural contexts where learning is not seen as a
collaborative and experiential activity.
• 2. TBLT requires teachers to be proficient in L2
• 3. It reinforces the stereotypical view that English-language
teachers should be native speakers.
• 4. What is appropriate for a second language teaching context
may not be appropriate for a foreign language context.
• a) Task-based instruction is seen as impractical in foreign language
contexts because of the limited class time available for teaching
the L2.
• b) Task-based teaching is seen as difficult to implement by non-
native speaking teachers whose L2 oral proficiency is uncertain.
• Apart from those shortcomings, Ellis (2004) adds the following:
• 5.The sequencing of tasks are difficult.
• 6. Published materials are not readily available.