POTENTIAL FUTURE OF PPP PARADIGM ON EFL GRAMMAR TEACHING: AN ANNOTATED SURVEY
Abstract
Grammar is not an empty space that need to be filled with lexis. Grammar, however, is a source of meaning. Thus, grammar plays an important role to gain high proficiency level, both in accuracy and fluency and needs to be treated with respect. The Presentation, Practice, Production or PPP is a paradigm for structuring language lessons involving the introduction and practice of new language features (lexical, grammatical or functional). It has meaningful learning, implicit learning, fluency based learning, meaning centeredness, student centredness and authentic language use. It extremely contradicts with the behaviorist PPP approach, which are mechanical learning, explicit learning, accuracy based learning, form centredness, teacher centredness, and concocted language use. This annotated survey summarizing the studies on potential future of PPP paradigm on EFL grammar teaching, shows that PPP can work effectively, and described a procedure for using it in the language classroom. This paradigm requires opportunities for both extensive and intensive skills practice for learners to benefit fully. Further, it has endured because many learners, teachers and teacher educators find it useful and familiar, similar to paradigms found in other areas of education in the literature. Some pedagogical implications are discussed with recommendations for curriculum designers, coursebook writers, language teachers and learners of foreign language contexts.
References
Astria, Niki. (2016). The use of PPP technique in teaching English to eleventh grade of MA Miftahul Ulum Ngraket Balong Ponorogo in academic year 2015/2016. Bachelor Thesis: STAIN Ponorogo.
Carless, David. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT
versus P-P-P debate: voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66.
Case, A. (2008). 15 reasons why PPP is so unfashionable. TEFL.net. Retrieved from http://edition.tefl.net/articles/teacher-technique/why-ppp-is-unfashionable/
Ellis, R. (1993a). Talking shop: Second language acquisition research: How does it help teachers? ELT Journal 47/1, 3-11.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1.
Ghazali. (2006). The Presentation-Practice-Production Vs Consciousness-Raising: Which Is Efficient in Teaching Grammar?
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: British Council.
Hellström, Rasmus. (2015). Task Based Language Teaching versus Presentation Practice Production. Thesis. Linköping University.
Herazo, J.D., Jerez, S., (2009). Learning through Communication in the EFL Class: Going beyond the PPP Approach. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura Vol. 14, No 23.
Huong, T.T.T. (2015). The study of grammar instruction for communicative purpose in high schools of Vietnam. International Journal of English Language Teaching Vol.3, No.8, pp.71-78
Jean & Simard .(2011). Grammar Teaching and Learning in L2: Necessary, but Boring? Foreign Language Annals• VOL. 44, NO.3.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (eds.). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 10-16). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2011). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nitta, R. & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and Practice in ELT Coursebooks. ELT Journal 59/1, 3-13.
Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50/3, 417-528.
Saaristo, Pekka. (2015). Grammar is the heart of language: grammar and its role in language learning among Finnish university students. Voices of pedagogical development - Expanding, enhancing and exploring higher education language learning (pp. 279-318).
Savage, K. L., Bitterline, G., Price, D., (2010). Grammar Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scrivener, J. (1996). ARC: A descriptive model for classroom work on language. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (eds.). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 79-92). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interaction between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60/2, 263-308.
Summer, T. (2011). An Evaluation of Methodological Options for Grammar Instruction in EFL Textbooks: Are Methods Dead? Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter .
Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. & Rubdy, R. (2001). EFL courses for adults. ELT Journal 55/1, 80-101.
Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. (2013). Adult coursebooks. ELT Journal 67/2, 233-249.
Ur, P. (2011). Grammar teaching: Research, theory and practice. In Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Volume 2 (pp. 507-522). New York: Routledge.
Willis, J. (1994). A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Zavala, B. (2012). Presentation, practice and production versus task based learning using from focused tasks. Maestría en Educación con Mención en Enseñanza de inglés como Lengua Extranjera. Universidad de Piura. Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación. Piura, Perú.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
