Article published in:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 3:1 (2021) ► pp. 93–116
Original Research Article

PPP in action

Insights from primary EFL lessons in Vietnam

| An Giang University
| Victoria University of Wellington
The presentation-practice-production (PPP) approach is used in primary schools in Vietnam to teach speaking skills. However, there is disagreement about the theoretical validity and practical efficacy of PPP (Ellis, 2018; Willis & Willis, 2007) and little research evidence for how teachers actually implement PPP and their views of this approach. The current study addresses this gap. Seven teachers from six primary schools in Vietnam were observed teaching 11 PPP speaking lessons and were then interviewed on their experience of teaching the lessons. Analysis of the observation data showed that all seven teachers followed all three phases of the PPP sequence in their lessons. However, they frequently added interactive activities to the presentation phase and adapted production activities to make them more communicative. The teachers held mixed views of PPP: Three spoke positively of its value for lower level classes, another teacher was somewhat neutral while the remaining three teachers were dismissive of it and actively sought to adopt a more communicative approach. Overall, findings from the study reveal limitations of the PPP approach as it is practiced in this context and highlight affordances for making PPP more communicative, including drawing on principles of effective task design.
Keywords: presentation-practice-production (PPP), textbooks, speaking lessons, primary schools, task-based language teaching (TBLT), Vietnam
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The PPP approach
    • 2.2Classroom implementation of PPP
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The context
    • 3.2Teacher participants
    • 3.3Data collection and analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Teachers’ PPP practices and the rationales of their implementation decisions
      • 4.1.1Presentation
      • 4.1.2Practice
      • 4.1.3Production
    • 4.2Teachers’ perceptions of the PPP approach
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 16 April 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19015.bui
References
Anderson, J.
(2017) A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT journal. ELT Journal, 71(2), 218–227.Google Scholar
Anderson, L., & Burns, R.
(1989) Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Borg, S.
(2006) Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G.
(2015) English language education among young learners in East Asian: A review of current research (2004–2014). Language Teaching, 48(3), 303–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D.
(1986) Teaching oral English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2001) Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57(2), 105–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carless, D.
(2009) Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 191, 49–66.Google Scholar
Choi, T., & Andon, N.
(2014) Can a teacher certification scheme change ELT classroom practice? ELT Journal, 68(1), 12–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dang, T. C. T., & Seals, C.
(2018) An evaluation of primary English textbooks in Vietnam: A sociolinguistic perspective. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 93–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(Ed) (2007) Practice in second language: Perspective from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Practice for second language learning: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. International journal of English studies, 10(1), 155–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Criado, R.
(2013) Automatization, skill acquisition and practice in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed). The encyclopaedia of applied linguistics (online) (pp. 1–8). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2017) Knowledge and skills in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato, The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.15–32). London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Communicative language teaching in the twenty-first century: The ‘principle communicative approach’. In J. Arnold & T. Murphey (Eds.), Meaningful action: Earl Stevick’s influence on language teaching (pp. 161–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018) Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N.
(2014) Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Enever, J.
(2016) Primary ELT: Issues and trends. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 353–365). London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P.
(2018) Child task-based interaction in EFL settings: Research and challenges. International journal of English studies, 18(2), 119–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A.
(2000) Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Harmer, J.
(2007) The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Hoang, V. V., Nguyen, T. Q., Phan, H., Do, H. N. T., Dao, L. N., & Truong, M. N. T.
(2015) Tieng Anh 3,4,5 (English 3, 4, 5) (3rd ed.). Ha Noi: Education Publishing House.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
(1972) Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1(1), 97–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, W.
(2007) Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J.
(2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. M. T.
(2011) Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 225–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, V. G.
(2014) Forms or meaning? Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding task-based language teaching: A Vietnamese case study. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Nguyen, V. G., Le, C. V., & Barnard, R.
(2015) “Old wine in new bottles”: Two case studies of task-based language teaching in Vietnam. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia (pp. 68–86). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D.
(2011) Teaching English to young learners. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim University Press.Google Scholar
Pinter, A.
(2017) Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phipps, S., & Borg, S.
(2009) Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 371, 380–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1996) Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (eds), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
(2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stake, R. E.
(1995) The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Swain, M.
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J.
(2007) Doing task-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
PPP in action