A potted history of PPP with the help

of ELT Journal
Jason Anderson

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

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 40 years 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, Dörnyei, 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: 430–9,
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 origins of PPP Contrary to the assertions of some, PPP does not originate in
‘audiolingual’ (for example Kumaravadivelu 2006: 61) or even

ELT Journal Volume 71/2 April 2017; doi:10.1093/elt/ccw055 218

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication August 2, 2016
 ‘behaviourist’ (Lewis 1993: 6) approaches to teaching. The relative
freedom provided in the final Production stage is inconsistent with
audiolingual approaches. PPP first appeared in the mid-1970s, and its
UK-based origins have clear links to the early development of CLT. At
that time, situational language teaching in the United Kingdom was
gradually evolving into a more communicative approach (Howatt 1984),
and a number of writers, methodologists, and language teachers were
experimenting with adding an additional, freer practice stage to lessons
beyond the Presentation and Practice typical of situational language

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

teaching (Rixon and Smith, 66/3: 383–93, 2012). This includes Abbs
and Freebairn, whose innovative Strategies series was one of the first
coursebooks to encourage such freedom (see Rixon and Smith ibid.).
However, the ‘Presentation, Practice, Production’ model itself first
appeared in the first edition of Donn Byrne’s (1976/1986) Teaching Oral
English, a handbook for training English language teachers, where it is
summarized under the following headings:
The presentation stage: the teacher as informant
The practice stage: the teacher as conductor
The production stage: the teacher as guide (ibid.: 2)
After observing that ‘language learning in the classroom so often stops
short’ (ibid.) after presentation and practice, Byrne goes on to note for the
production stage that
no real learning can be assumed to have taken place until the students
are able to use the language for themselves. At any level of attainment they
need to be given regular and frequent opportunities to use the language
freely, even if they sometimes make mistakes as a result. (Ibid.: 2; italics in
original)
In his more detailed description of this stage later in the book, Byrne
(ibid.: 80–98) promotes a range of activities that were to become
hallmarks of CLT such as discussion, language games, role-play,
songs, and dramatization, all of which were gaining popularity in more
progressive teaching materials at the time, such as Strategies (see Rixon
and Smith op.cit.).
Although Byrne coined the three stages of PPP, his work was part of a gradual
shift, and it drew strongly upon an earlier framework described by Julian
Dakin (1973) in The Language Laboratory and Language Learning, published as
part of the series Longman Handbooks for Language Teachers when Byrne was
series editor. Including four stages (1 Presentation, 2 Practice, 3 Development,
and 4 Testing), his Development stage involved relaxing
control over the pupils’ performance. The pupils are set tasks such
as telling a story themselves, describing pictures, retailing their daily
lives and past or future activities, expressing their own needs and
preferences. The successful completion of such tasks calls for the use
not only of the structure that has just been practised but of all that has
been learnt before. The teacher cannot and should not interrupt the
pupils’ performance by correcting every single mistake. (Ibid.: 5)

A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal 219

 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 Corder’s (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,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

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.
While Dakin’s (op.cit.) four-stage framework did not catch on across
ELT, Byrne’s simpler, more alliterative model did, although perhaps not
immediately. It is notable that the ELT Journal review article for Byrne’s
book did not appear until 1980 (Brookes 35/1: 71–2, 1980) and did not
mention PPP itself.

PPP’s popularity in As the demand for English language teachers grew in the late 1970s
the 1980s 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 Figure 1). Similar models could be
found in other influential works of the era (for example Harmer’s
(1983: 55–7) 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: 99–101, 1983) of an early
book by Jane Willis. He notes:

figure1
References to four planning
frameworks in ELT Journal
(1976–2015).3

Note: OHE stands for Observe, Hypothesise, Experiment; ARC stands for
Authentic (practice), Restricted (practice), Clarification; and ESA stands for
Engage, Study, Activate

220 Jason Anderson

 Willis has (rightly, in my opinion) chosen to stand by a fairly traditional
(at least in British circles) cycle of teaching (presentation, practice,
production, etc.) and the questionable division of language teaching into
‘skill areas’. (Ibid.: 101)
While Willis’s opinions regarding PPP would change (see below), it is
notable from Rossner’s comment that he described PPP as ‘traditional’
only seven years after it had first been described. References to it increased
during the 1980s (see Figure 1) and the acronym itself first appeared in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

ELT Journal in Boardman’s (41/4: 304–6, 1987) review of the second edition
of Byrne’s Teaching Oral English (1986). Boardman’s discontent with its
over-application as a model was clear, as was Edge’s (38/4: 256–61, 1984),
three years earlier. Byrne (op.cit.) seems to have anticipated this criticism,
and in the second edition, he both acknowledged its limitations and
suggested that the order of the stages could be flexible, intimating towards a
more responsive, almost integrated, focus on form:
[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.

The rejection of PPP As if in the spirit of a fin de siècle reaction to the dominant paradigm,
in the 1990s during the 1990s, a large number of critiques of PPP appeared in
ELT literature (see Figure 2), most notable in Challenge and Change in
Language Teaching (Willis and Willis 1996), which includes no fewer than
seven papers denouncing it. Common criticisms included the following
related arguments:

figure2
Orientation of articles,
reviews, and other pieces
towards PPP in ELT Journal
(1981–2015)4

A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal 221

 1 The key assumption about language learning underpinning
PPP-type planning (often called ‘Focus on forms’ in SLA literature),
that features of language can be isolated, taught, practised, and learnt
separately within a synthetic syllabus, was not supported by early SLA
research. Such research supported the presence of a more natural order
of acquisition that remained largely unaffected by explicit instruction
(Ellis 47/1: 3–11, 1993). This same research was often used to justify
alternative ‘approaches’ such as the natural approach, task-based
language teaching and the lexical approach, all of which were gaining

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

popularity in literature on teaching methodology (see, for example,
Willis and Willis ibid.).
2 Language itself as a system is better understood holistically, and any
practices that attempt to segment it misrepresent its nature (Lewis
op.cit.).
3 PPP is teacher-centred, causing teachers to neglect the needs of the
learner, and preventing them from responding to the individual
challenges that learners face during the lesson (Lewis op.cit.; Scrivener
1996).
4 PPP is too prescriptive and inflexible, describing only one of many
possible types of lesson (Scrivener ibid.).
Further criticism appeared in ELT Journal. Fortune (52/1: 67–80,
1998) refers to the ‘tired ‘P-P-P’ methodological paradigm’ (ibid.: 77) in
his survey of grammar practice books, Thornbury (53/1: 4–11, 1999) notes
that it is ‘considered suspect by virtue of being associated with a
transmission-style view of teaching’ (ibid.: 5), and Foster (53/1: 69–70,
1999) claims (erroneously, see above) that within a PPP model, ‘Errors
are evidence of poor learning, requiring more PPP treatment’ (ibid.:
69). Some defence was offered, with Hopkins and Nettle (48/2: 157–61,
1994) responding to Ellis’s criticism by noting that ‘well-directed feedback
after such a freer practice stage shows students how they could use the
target language effectively in the future’ (ibid.: 158; italics in original), and
Clegg (53/3: 230–31, 1999) responding to Foster’s criticism by noting that
‘the odds are that it is unlikely that SLA research in backing process and
task-based approaches has got it all right, and that all the practitioners
using PPP have got it all wrong’ (ibid.: 230). From a personal perspective,
I remember reading Clegg’s words in 1999 as a novice, often struggling
teacher who found PPP a useful scaffolding device; they provided some
reassurance that I was not misguided. Indeed, his words were somewhat
portentous (see below).

PPP’s compatibility It may be (and often is) argued that one potential explanation for
with ELT PPP’s durability in our profession, and to some extent for its frequency
coursebooks of mention in ELT Journal, derives from its compatibility with the
grammatical syllabi often used to structure ELT coursebooks and
grammar practice books. Fortune’s (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:
80–101, 2001; Masuhara, Hann, Yi, and Tomlinson 62/3: 294–312, 2008;
Tomlinson and Masuhara 67/2: 233–49, 2013), Tomlinson, Masuhara,
and colleagues have attempted to evaluate the efficacy of mainstream ELT

222 Jason Anderson

 coursebooks based on preselected criteria, which they themselves admit
are essentially subjective. In all three, they are critical of the continued
presence of PPP as a structuring device, repeatedly citing SLA research as
a basis for criticizing it as ineffective, as the following extracts from their
2013 article show. From the Introduction:
We were pleased that some acknowledgement had been made of the
value of some research findings, but disappointed that many of the
main findings of SLA research were still being ignored. (Tomlinson and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

Masuhara ibid.: 233)
From the Conclusion:
Our criterion-referenced prediction is that most of the courses we have
reviewed, whilst being very appealing to the eye and to those users
favouring discrete focus on and practice of language items, are unlikely
to be very effective in facilitating language acquisition and development.
(Tomlinson and Masuhara ibid.: 248)
Aside from the fact that SLA research findings are complex and
contingent, and different interpretations of what constitutes ‘the main
findings’ are necessarily subjective, their attitude towards explicit,
practice-oriented instruction of the PPP type has remained consistently
dismissive, despite the fact that SLA research findings are telling us
very different things today to what they were telling us at the turn of
the century, findings that they have failed to acknowledge (see below).
Further, like Scrivener (op.cit.: 80) before them, they overlook PPP’s
close association with the communicative approach, instead choosing to
mythologize an alternative, almost halcyon history:
There seems to be a reaction against the freer, open-ended, learner-centred
days of the Communicative Approach, and a fear that unless language is
seen to be taught, books will not be bought. (Tomlinson et al. 2001: 87)
Nitta and Gardner (59/1: 3–13, 2005) provide a somewhat more
balanced evaluation of consciousness-raising and practice in nine
ELT coursebooks, observing that while PPP is dominant in all, the
Presentation stage often involves inductive discovery of rules, consistent
with a consciousness-raising approach as promoted by Ellis (op.cit.), and
demonstrating that, contrary to Ellis’s criticism of PPP, the two are not
incompatible.

A more recent While early SLA research (as referred to by Tomlinson et al. op.cit. above)
change in fortune supported the inclusion of consciousness-raising, noticing, inductive
for PPP 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

A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal 223

 explicit instruction of complex forms and simple forms respectively; ibid.:
281), conclude:
… the positive effects of explicit instruction on measures of spontaneous
L2 production could be interpreted as support for the strong interface
position and the argument that declarative (i.e., explicit) knowledge
obtained via explicit instruction can be converted into procedural (i.e.,
implicit) knowledge with practice (DeKeyser, 1998; Hulstijn, 1995).
As mentioned above, while SLA research is complex, and interpretations

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

of findings are necessarily subjective, the findings of Spada and Tomita’s
(op.cit.) meta-analysis surely preclude anyone from arguing that SLA
research findings do not support PPP-type instruction. What is more, they
are not alone, and evidence from both extensive research in mainstream
education and reviews by respected SLA researchers concur with their
findings (see Anderson 2016).
Interested to see whether any changes with regard to attitudes towards
PPP over the decades existed in the writings of ELT Journal, I conducted
a review of contributions to the Journal (articles, reviews, and ‘Readers
respond’ pieces) making reference to PPP since 1980. The results,
shown in Figure 2, are revealing of a more gradual change in attitude
towards PPP. While the majority of pieces since 1980 which refer to
PPP just mention it, and many do so without passing judgement, the
balance of pieces for and against PPP appears to have shifted somewhat.
From 1995 to 2005, 11 contributions were critical and only three were
in support of PPP, while from 2005 to 2015, only two have been critical
compared to four that have been supportive, possibly echoing the SLA
research findings described above.5 Indeed, Scheffler, responsible for two
contributions in favour of PPP (63/1: 5–12, 2009; 69/4: 437–9, 2015),
cites Spada and Tomita’s research in the latter of his pieces (ibid.: 438),
noting:
If PPP is nonsense, then skill acquisition theory is nonsense (at
least as applied to language learning). If ‘teacher imposed’ explicit
grammar instruction is useless, then how can it lead to large
improvements in performance measured by spontaneous output
measures (Spada and Tomita 2010)? If explicit knowledge does not
help performance, then why are there positive correlations between
L2 metalinguistic knowledge and oral measures of L2 proficiency
(Absi 2014)?
Further evidence of PPP’s continued popularity comes from research
by Harris (op.cit.) on past and current teaching frameworks used in
initial teacher education. His findings (based on surveys of 91 trainers
and 39 graduates) led him to conclude that PPP is still dominant on
courses such as the Cambridge CELTA and the Trinity CertTESOL,
although it today often includes text-based contextualization of
new language and guided discovery (largely mirroring recent ELT
coursebooks; Nitta and Gardner op.cit.). He also notes that a variety of
alternative frameworks is also made use of, especially the ‘pre/during/
post’ structure for receptive skills lessons, but also task-based and test-
teach-test frameworks. His research also indicates that these are carried

224 Jason Anderson

 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, Harris’s (op.cit.) research indicates that
most training courses, and most novice teachers today, seem to adopt a
healthy balance of different frameworks.

The future of PPP? As well as the above-cited evidence from ELT Journal indicating a recent
thawing of negative opinion towards PPP, clues for its future fate may

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

come from a recent publication that endorses a PPP-type approach to
lesson structuring. Originally based on ideas first advanced in the 1990s,
The Principled Communicative Approach (Arnold et al. op.cit.: 9) proposes a
PPP-type lesson structure as follows:
1 the declarative input stage;
2 the controlled practice stage; and
3 the open-ended practice stage.
While acknowledging that this structure is ‘reminiscent’ (Arnold et al.
op.cit.: 9) of PPP, the authors provide theoretical justification for its
use directly from skill learning theory (in which explanation precedes
practice which precedes automatization), an older model that attempts
to account for how a much larger variety of skills are learnt across
cultures, such as learning to play a musical instrument, to ride a bicycle,
or even to read and write. Insomuch as it is likely to be familiar to and
compatible with the beliefs of a wide range of teachers and learners,
skill learning theory provides a possible explanation for the uptake
and durability of PPP among language teachers in a range of different
contexts worldwide. Recent research by Choi and Andon (68/1: 12–21,
2014) has suggested that, at least in one context (South Korean primary
and secondary schools) where teaching practices have remained resistant
to change, PPP has had some success in helping teachers to make
lessons more communicative:
… in comparison to the traditional teaching style that is common in the
South Korean context, P-P-P is as radical as is pragmatically feasible in
providing students with opportunities to use L2, something which is
completely lacking in many English classes. (Ibid.: 15)
Given the current worldwide trend that is seeing much ELT move from
tertiary to secondary and primary classrooms in many countries, such
research indicates that, at least in some contexts, teacher education
programmes may make greater gains through promoting effective PPP
than through attempting to implement alternative paradigms, such as those
deriving from task-based instruction that may appear counter-intuitive from
a skill learning perspective. As Widdowson (2003: 131) notes:
this is not just a matter of applied linguistic principle, but of practical
feasibility. Even if there were grounds for a complete rejection of
everything that PPP (or anything remotely resembling it) stands for in
favour of a radically different approach, this approach has to be such as
to be teachable. (Italics in original)

A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal 225

 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 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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020

be the most practically viable in language classrooms and ELT materials
to date. I have 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,
I have 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.
From a personal perspective, ever since I found it useful as a struggling
trainee on an initial teacher training course back in the mid-1990s, I have
continued to make use of PPP both as a teacher and as a teacher trainer
in certain contexts, including initial teacher training, in-service training
of primary and secondary English teachers in low- and middle-income
countries, and in my own teaching (see Anderson op.cit.). However, I am
very much aware of its limitations, most importantly that it is only one of
many lesson shapes necessary if we are to provide our learners with an
appropriate combination of intensive and extensive skills work alongside
both isolated and integrated form focus in a balanced curriculum.
While PPP continues to divide opinion 40 years after its genesis, the
innovation and influence of its originators should nonetheless be noted
and commended: Julian Dakin, Donn Byrne, and possibly other educators
from that seminal period whose work was less well documented. My
sincere apologies to any who have been omitted here.
Final version received June 2016

Notes Practice: controlled practice of the feature is

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.
provided, typically including written exercises
(such as gap-fills), controlled speaking practice
activities (for example ‘Find someone who …’),
and oral drills.
Production: opportunities for use of the feature
are provided through free production activities
that attempt to simulate real-world language
usage (spoken or written) such as role-plays,
discussions, email exchanges, and story writing,

226 Jason Anderson

 when correction and integrated form focus can be
provided by the teacher.
2  For ELT Journal articles referenced as part of this
study, bibliographical details are provided within
the text as follows: volume and issue number,
followed by page number(s), then publication year,
rather than in the list of references.
3  Publisher’s own online journal search engine
was used (http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/search).
Searches included possible abbreviated forms (for
example ‘ESA’, ‘E-S-A’, etc.), non-abbreviated forms
(for example ‘engage study activate’), and with
author name but without quotations (for example
Harmer engage study activate). Results were
examined for reference to the framework. Pieces
(for example articles, reviews, ‘Readers respond’
pieces, etc.) which included multiple references
were counted only once. Year of print publication
was used.
4  Publisher’s own online journal search engine was
used (http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/search). Pieces
themselves were found as described for Figure 1.
References to PPP were examined. Those that
criticized PPP or cited evidence used to discredit
it were categorized as ‘Against PPP’. Those that
praised it or cited evidence used to support its
validity were categorized as ‘For PPP’. All other
pieces were categorized as neutral.
5  It is also interesting to note how much more
neutrality there is in the approach of more recent
articles, perhaps indicative of a move towards more
academic objectivity within the Journal itself.
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: 14–22.
Arnold, J., Z. Dörnyei, 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 learner’s
errors’. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching 5/4: 161–70.
Dakin, J. 1973. The Language Laboratory and Language
Learning. Harlow: Longman.
A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal
Harmer, J. 1983. The Practice of English Language
Teaching (first edition). Harlow: Longman.
Harris, B. 2015. ‘Where are we now? Current teaching
paradigms in pre-service training’. Paper presented at
the 49th International IATEFL Annual Conference,
Manchester, UK.
Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A History of English Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. ‘TESOL methods:
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/71/2/218/2447419 by University of Leeds user on 24 January 2020
changing tracks, challenging trends’. TESOL
Quarterly 40/1: 59–81.
Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach: The State of
ELT and a Way Forward. Hove: Language Teaching
Publications.
Norris, J. M. and L. Ortega. 2000. ‘Effectiveness of
L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative
meta-analysis’. Language Learning 50/3: 417–528.
Scrivener, J. 1996. ‘ARC: a descriptive model for
classroom work on language’ in J. Willis and D. Willis
(eds.). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Spada, N. and Y. Tomita. 2010. ‘Interactions between
type of instruction and type of language feature: a
meta-analysis’. Language Learning 60/2: 263–308.
Widdowson, H. 2003. Defining Issues in English
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Willis, J. and D. Willis (eds.). 1996. Challenge and
Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan
Heinemann.
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
227