Skip to main content

Three types of PPP

PPP, in case you don't know, stands for Presentation Practice Production. In language classrooms it's the approach adopted by most teachers when they introduce a new grammatical structure or vocabulary topic. The idea is broadly that you present the structure, give students a chance to practise it within narrow parameters, then finally an opportunity to use the structure in a less controlled context. This approach fits well with the skill acquisition view of second language learning and is akin to the way you might teach other skills in life, e.g. learning how to do a side-step in rugby or play a simple piece of music on the piano.

But PPP can come in different forms and may mean different things to different teachers. Let me offer three different ways of applying it.

1. Deductive approach

In this clearest and simplest approach you would present a new structure on the board with examples, e.g. you might explain and show how the comparative of adjectives functions. This is explicit grammar teaching in its purest form and you could enhance the process with translations, using underlining, highlighting or colour to make the key elements clearer to students. Students might then copy down the notes before moving on to some structured practice. This might be in the form of a cloze exercise, a matching task, a spot-the-error task or similar. Translation into English could be involved along with some tightly structured question and answer or other oral interaction. Once you think the class has mastered the structure you then move on, probably in a subsequent lesson, to some production whereby students get the chance to use comparatives in a less tightly controlled fashion. This could involve an information gap task, general conversation questions featuring comparatives or a written task comparing two people.

2. Inductive approach (1)

This differs somewhat from the above in as far as you do not explain the structure from the very start. In this case you would present a limited number of examples of the structure in a meaningful context, e.g. for comparative of adjectives showing three stick figures of different heights, body shapes and IQ (controversial?) and proceed to describe the differences between the three characters. Fred is taller then John, John is smarter than David etc. At some point in the teaching sequence you would then ask students to notice what is going on, what patterns they can see or hear.

At this point you could then present the structure as above in Section 1 in order to make sure all students have understood. You could call this "inductive-lite" since you have not given a great deal of time for students to pick up the structure. Once you have presented the structure, you could then continue as in Section 1.

3. Inductive approach (2)

This has been described in a recent Gianfranco Conti blog here. In this case, you make sure that students hear and read many, many examples of the structure in context. You avoid any explicit grammar explanation for a long time, allowing plenty of time for the structure to become embedded in students' memories. Indeed, you may choose to avoid any explanation at all, if you think students have mastered the structure for themselves. In this approach, which would be favoured by proponents of the comprehension hypothesis (language is acquired by understanding messages), the emphasis is on meaning, but with much repetition of the target structure.

After a lengthy period of assimilation you would then proceed to do some structured practice examples and freer production as described above. In a sense this third approach is barely PPP at all, especially if you omit the explanation phase.

Reflections

Which of the above three approaches is best? Research does not help us a great deal since no study has convincingly compared in controlled conditions the effectiveness of each. My own preference was generally for (2) but I varied how I taught grammar depending on the class and the structure being taught.

For example, with the subjunctive in A-level classes I chose approach (1), giving quite detailed handouts summarising the formation and use of the subjunctive, before proceeding to structured practice and freer production. Why? Because the range of forms and uses is too wide to teach by drip-feeding and older students who have opted for the subject can handle detailed explanations better.

On the other hand, when introducing a new tense with younger pupils I would usually use (2), often with pictures to support the presentation phase. I felt more comfortable letting students figure out the patterns for themselves, sensing that they might retain them better if they had noticed the pattern themselves without prompting. In addition, the challenge of working something out independently should inherently be more engaging.

With other trickier grammatical structures, e.g. the use of the relatives  ce qui and ce que I felt that explanation was more likely to lead to confusion with some intermediate students and felt it was better to let nature take its course, just letting students see and hear them in context. With some classes I would not have taught that structure at all, of course. You have to pick and choose your grammar carefully with lower attaining pupils.

All of this presupposes that we can "teach" grammar at all - some scholars and teachers claim we cannot and that students acquire grammar at their own rate and in their own order. I cannot possibly say for sure, but because of the way I was taught and through my reading, I remain of the opinion that practising structures, as long as you don't do it excessively, is very useful and can, in a school setting, lead to effective acquisition. If I were to hazard a guess at the amount of time I spent focused on grammar I would say that with advanced level students it was less than 10%, and with younger students no more than 30%. And within that 30% the large majority of the practice would have been based on meaningful (if not "compelling") target language.

We discuss these issues in more detail in The Language Teacher Toolkit.

Comments

  1. This is very interesting. AIM teachers start with 3, then 2, then 1. We provide lots of PDL, pared down language and teach students to understand and speak using gestures and pleasant repetition. Students get lots of practice using the language via choral speaking and reading and learn to use the language. Then we begin to introduce short explanations of why via grammar raps. Finally, once the students have had ample access to practice and have learned to use the language, we begin to explain the mechanics in a more deductive way, via specific grammar lessons!

    ReplyDelete
  2. For a discussion of PPP and task-based alternatives, with edtech, see Jarvis 2005 http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume19/ej73/ej73a1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An intetesting srticle. Thank you for the link. TBLT probably fits the context of ESL better than secondary MFL where GCSE exams exert such an influence. PPP may be actually gaining ground again in our field. The description of PPP in the article was vety accurate, as I understand it. A valid and common question to ask with TBLT is how students get the linguistic resources in the first place to perform useful tasks. I know Michael Long has attempted to answer this. It remains an open question whether PPP can lead to proceduralisation. My hunch and experience is that it can for some students even with limited time constraints.

      Delete
  3. I thought we had finally recognised that PPP is not suitable for our age of easy access to linguistic models. Much to be gained from Lewis's lexical approach (slide 10) and social constructivism https://www.slideshare.net/teresamac/language-teaching-pedagogies-ln209

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure who the “we” is there! I follow this debate with interest, including Geoff Jordan’s strident attacks on PPP and explicit grammar. Most teachers are still wedded to it and my current feeling is that research is too young yet for us to draw definitive conclusions. PPP includes comprehensible input, of course, so we cannot be sure what is bringing about acquisition: output practice, mere input or some declarative knowledge of form. I lean (like academic scholars) towards input as the key but also think patterning of input within a PPP format makes sense and satisfies learner’s curiosity to understand. I’m a bit more Focus on Form than Focus on Forms.
      Thanks for commenting. I’ll follow up your link.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The latest research on teaching vocabulary

I've been dipping into The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017) edited by Loewen and Sato. This blog is a succinct summary of Chapter 16 by Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt on the topic of teaching vocabulary. I hope you find it useful.

1.  Background

The authors begin by outlining the clear importance of vocabulary knowledge in language acquisition, stating that it's a key predictor of overall language proficiency (e.g. Alderson, 2007). Students often say that their lack of vocabulary is the main reason for their difficulty understanding and using the language (e.g. Nation, 2012). Historically vocabulary has been neglected when compared to grammar, notably in the grammar-translation and audio-lingual traditions as well as  communicative language teaching.

(My note: this is also true, to an extent, of the oral-situational approach which I was trained in where most vocabulary is learned incidentally as part of question-answer sequence…

A zero preparation fluency game

I am grateful to Kayleigh Meyrick, a teacher in Sheffield, for this game which she described in the Languages Today magazine (January, 2018). She called it “Swap It/Add It” and it’s dead simple! I’ve added my own little twist as well as a justification for the activity.

You could use this at almost any level, even advanced level where the language could get a good deal more sophisticated.

Put students into small groups or pairs. If in groups you can have them stand in circles to add a sense of occasion. One student utters a sentence, e.g. “J’aime jouer au foot avec mes copains parce que c’est amusant.” (You could provide the starter sentence or let groups make up their own.) The next student (or partner) has to change one element in the sentence, and so on, until you restart with a different sentence. You could give a time limit of, say, 2 minutes. The sentence could easily relate to the topic you are working on. At advanced level a suitable sentence starter might be:

“Selon un article q…

Google Translate beaters

Google Translate is a really useful tool, but some teachers say that they have stopped setting written work to be done at home because students are cheating by using it. On a number of occasions I have seen teachers asking what tasks can be set which make the use of Google Translate hard or impossible. Having given this some thought I have come up with one possible Google Translate-beating task type. It's a two way gapped translation exercise where students have to complete gaps in two parallel texts, one in French, one in English. There are no complete sentences which can be copied and pasted into Google.

This is what one looks like. Remember to hand out both texts at the same time.


English 

_____. My name is David. _ __ 15 years old and I live in Ripon, a _____ ____ in the north of _______, near York. I have two _______ and one brother. My brother __ ______ David and my _______ are called Erika and Claire. We live in a _____ house in the centre of ____. In ___ house _____ …

Worried about the new GCSEs?

Twitter and MFL Facebook groups are replete with posts expressing concerns about the new GCSEs and, in particular, the difficulty of the exam, grades and tiers. I can only comment from a distance since I am no longer in the classroom, but I have been through a number of sea changes in assessment over the years so may have something useful to say.

Firstly, as far as general difficulty of papers is concerned, I think it’s fair to say that the new assessment is harder (not necessarily in terms of grades though). This is particularly evident in the writing tasks and speaking test. Although it will still be possible to work in some memorised material in these parts of the exam, there is no doubt that weaker candidates will have more problems coping with the greater requirement for unrehearsed language. Past experience working with average to very able students tells me some, even those with reasonable attainment, will flounder on the written questions in the heat of the moment. Others will…

Dissecting a lesson: using a set of PowerPoint slides

I was prompted to write this just having produced for frenchteacher.net three separate PowerPoint presentations using the same set of 20 pictures (sports). A very good way for you to save time is to reuse the same resource in a number of different ways.

I chose 20 clear, simple, clear and copyright-free images from pixabay.com to produce three presentations on present tense (beginners), near future (post beginner) and perfect tense (post-beginner/low intermediate). Here is one of them:





Below is how I would have taught using this presentation - it won't be everyone's cup of tea, especially of you are not big on choral repetition and PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production), but I'll justify my choice in the plan at each stage. For some readers this will be standard practice.

1. Explain in English that you are going to teach the class how to talk about and understand people talking about sport. By the end of the lesson they will be able to say and understand 20 different sport…