Three Alternatives to Present, Practice and Produce (PPP) Lessons

In a previous blog, ‘A guide to planning a PPP lesson’, Laura Wilkes outlined how to structure a lesson using a Present, Practice, Produce (PPP) staging. As Laura mentions, this staging model is quite ‘linear’ going from new language input to more controlled use to freer use. As she points out, this way of staging a lesson is appropriate when teaching learners who don’t know a particular language point, especially beginners. The clear structure is also useful for beginner teachers not yet sufficiently experienced to experiment with other ways of staging a lesson. However, as we grow more experienced in teaching, we may look at alternative lesson structures. This blog will outline three such alternatives.

Present, Practice, Produce Stages

Before looking at alternatives, it is important to review the purposes of each stage of the PPP model. In a previous publication on this topic, I break down the purposes of different lesson stages as follows:

• Motivation: getting students interested in the topic and setting the context.

• Language input: exposing students to the target language.

• Language learning: study of a particular language item.

• Controlled use: accuracy-focused practice activities.

• Free use: fluency-focused practice activities. 

Let’s look at how these purposes fit within a typical PPP lesson.

Lead in: Motivation

Although not originally part of the PPP staging model, perhaps due to the influence of other models such as Engage, Study, Activate (ESA), it is common to see an activity designed to increase students’ motivation at the beginning of a PPP lesson. 

For example, the teacher may tell an amusing anecdote or students may discuss their experience related to the lesson topic in pairs. 

Language Input and Learning

To clarify the difference between input and learning, input relates to learners being exposed to examples of language, which leads to the acquisition of that language. Learning, meanwhile, relates to the deliberate study of a particular language item. 

For example, if students read a passage with examples of the present perfect, this would be input. If they fill in a worksheet which asks them questions about the present perfect, this would be learning. 

In PPP, the teacher presents contextualised examples of the target language, followed by the meaning, form and pronunciation. This means that the present stage of PPP usually includes both input and learning. 

Practice: Controlled Use

Controlled use activities tend to involve students formulating written or spoken examples of the target structure with a focus on accuracy. Examples include drills, gap fills and surveys.

Produce: Free Use

As opposed to controlled-use activities, free-use ones involve the integration of the target language with other language in communicative activities which focus on fluency. 

Students may, for example, engage in a role play, have a discussion or mingle and discuss a certain topic with different classmates. 

Alternative 1: Test, Teach, Test 

One alternative to PPP is to, rather than deciding the language point students are going to learn, find out what they need to learn by first testing them. This way of structuring a lesson is often referred to as Test, Teach, Test (TTT) and follows this pattern:

• Test: Free use 

• Teach: Language input and/or learning (and possibly controlled use)

• Test: Free use

Students first complete a communicative activity while the teacher monitors closely for areas of difficulty. The teacher then provides input and clarification on these areas and possibly asks learners to complete controlled-use activities. Finally, the students complete the same free use activity or a similar one to see if they can use the language points focused on in the ‘teach’ stage. 

The advantages of this structure are fairly obvious. Rather than pre-determining what students are going to learn we find the areas which are going to be most useful to them. 

There are, of course, some drawbacks. This type of lesson is best suited to learners who have progressed past the beginner stage and teachers with experience. From the students’ perspective, it would be difficult for a beginner student to complete a communicative activity without any language input first. From a teacher’s perspective, it is necessary to have sufficient language awareness and teaching experience to identify useful areas to work on and improvise activities. 

Alternative 2: Context, Analysis, Practice

Jason Anderson’s Context, Analysis, Practice (CAP) and Jim Scrivener’s Authentic, Restricted, Clarification (ARC) differ from PPP in two important ways. I will use CAP to demonstrate these. A CAP lesson is organised as follows:

• Context: Language input and possibly receptive skills practice

• Analysis: Language learning

• Practice: Controlled and/or free use

The first difference is the way in which this structure allows for listening or reading practice. Scrivener emphasises the use of spoken or written texts during the input stage, while Anderson notes the input could come from other sources such as the teacher. What they have in common is the opportunity for texts to be read or listened to for meaning before there is focus on the language item itself. 

The second difference is, while PPP prescribes both controlled and free use, CAP and ARC ask teachers to decide whether to conduct a controlled or free use activity or both. If the language point is a particularly difficult one, for example, teachers may decide to only ask learners to use it in a controlled way.

The main advantage of this model is that it allows for the practice of different skills (known as an integrated skills lesson). Through this integration students also get a chance to focus on both meaning and language in a way they would not if the sole focus is on language.

A possible disadvantage is that reading and listening tasks often take time to set up and facilitate, meaning that practice time may be restricted. 

Alternative 3: The Patchwork

Jeremy Harmer contrasts the linear way PPP is organised with the ‘messy’ way languages are learned. The ‘patchwork’ is supposed to mirror this non-linear process. Essentially, the key point about this lesson structure is that there is no set structure. As such, there are many ways in which this type of lesson could be set up. A couple of examples are:

Patchwork lesson example 1:

• An activity focused on motivation.

• Input on a language point.

• An activation exercise designed to test receptive understanding of that point.

• A language learning activity.

• Controlled and/or free use.

Patchwork lesson example 2:

• An activity focused on input on a language point.

• A language learning activity focused on one aspect of a language point (e.g. the structure of the present perfect).

• A controlled use activity.

• A language learning activity focused on another aspect (e.g. different past participles).

• Free use. 

The great thing about this type of lesson is that teachers can structure their teaching according to their own knowledge and experience and the needs of their students.

One potential disadvantage is that making a reasoned judgement about how stages fit together may mean that lesson planning takes more time and making such a judgement also needs a certain amount of experience. 

Overall, PPP is a sound lesson structure for beginner teachers and can be used effectively by experienced teachers in the right types of lessons. An analogy I like is that PPP is like a portrait, while other lesson structures are more like abstract art. Once you feel comfortable with the portrait (PPP), it is time to start slowly tweaking your lesson structures to try out some of the more ‘abstract’ structures, including those outlined in this blog. 

References

• Anderson, J. (2017a). Thinking CAP. Modern English Teacher, 26(3), 13-15.

• Gordon, M. (2022). What’s in a name? Modern English Teacher 32.1, 52-58.

• Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.

• Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning Teaching (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan Education.

• Wilkes, L. (2018). A guide to planning a PPP Lesson. Available here.

You might also like