TBLT and PPP: A comparison of teaching methods

Liliana Andrea López González

Didactics II
2021-1

Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the saying goes. The same is true for the teaching methods for the
English Language. There are many approaches to this feat, though few as controversial as the
Presentation-Practice-Performance and Task-Based Learning methods. It so happens that the
debate regarding which is better of the two has withstood the test of time, spanning over decades
and research papers. There should be no room for a black-and-white mentality in the twenty-first
century academia. I believe each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and that a great teacher
should be able to “read the room” and know their audience. Teaching grammar is not the same as
teaching vocabulary nor is a child the same as an adult learner. Furthermore, variety is key in any
skill acquisition process. With this purpose, we will analyze the quality each method has to better
understand how to use them in praxis.

Main principles
When comparing two ELT methods, I will be using the criteria Larsen-Freeman and Anderson used
in their book, referenced in this essay. These include main goals, student-teacher roles,
teaching/learning process, the nature of student-teacher interaction, how the students’ feelings
are dealt with, how culture and language is viewed, what skills are emphasized, role of the
students’ native language, evaluation, and how the teacher responds to student errors. As the
reader may note, this criterion is quite extensive, and it covers just about every aspect one would
consider when evaluating ELT methods.

Main goals
There are some clear differences when it comes to the goals and outcomes of each method. One is
a means to a pragmatic end while the other is used mostly for introducing new content. In TBL-
TBLT, the teachers’ goal is to facilitate students’ language learning by engaging them in a variety of
tasks that have a clear outcome [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ], whereas PPP is used in ELT as a
prescriptive framework for the structuring of new language lessons (especially grammar and
functional language, but also lexis) [CITATION Jas16 \l 2058 ].
Furthermore, TBL as described by Willis has three essential conditions and one desirable condition
in order to be successful: exposure, use and motivation on one hand and instruction on the other [
CITATION Adv19 \l 2058 ].

Student-teacher roles
It appears that there is an imbalance regarding the roles between the two methods; the outcomes
of TBL greatly depends on the students and their input and PPP focuses mainly on the teacher. For
Larsen and Freeman, “the teacher’s role” in TBL “is to choose task, based on an analysis of
students’ needs, that are appropriate to the level of the students and to create a pre-task and task
follow-up phases that are in line with the abilities and needs of the students. The teacher also
monitors students’ performance and intervenes as necessary. The role of the students is to
communicate with their peers to complete the task.” [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ]; therefore, the
students are the protagonists of each lesson. As for PPP, sources agree with “Teacher as an
informant, as a conductor and as a guide in each stage”[CITATION Jas16 \l 2058 ].

Teaching/learning process
Both are three-phased lesson structures that start with an introduction and an activity. The main
difference is how the second phase takes place before reinforcing the material. The Practice phase
of PPP requires higher teacher involvement through controlled practice and less- controlled
practice than that of the Task phase in TBLT, and consequently, this allots less time for student
creation and production.

Nature of student-teacher interaction

The teacher is the input provider during the initial phase of the lesson. He also sets the task for
students to performing TBL for Larsen-Freeman and Anderson. The teacher pays attention during
the task, making note of language that should be focused on. He provides feedback such as
recasts. Students often work closely together to help each other accomplish the task and problem-
solve. [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ]. Interaction patterns are diverse and much of the time can be
spent on student-student interaction.

The opposite is true for the PPP method where, there are interactions outside of Teacher-student,
interaction is done mostly through Prompting. Student to student prompting is considered “Free
drill practice” [CITATION Sha21 \l 2058 ].

How the student’s feelings are dealt with

Considering that the PPP method preceded TBL, being 60 years old at least, it didn’t initially
integrate any of Maslow’s principles and affective theories. However, the concept of drilling is
strongly influenced by behaviorism and as such, teacher motivation should and would be provided
through positive reinforcement during the drills and presentation feedback. As for TBL, students
are motivated by doing tasks that prepare them for the real world [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ].

How is culture and language are viewed

Not much literature can be found in this regard for PPP. However, some language institutes who
have adopted this method do so on the premise of being able to teach any student regardless of
the teacher’s background, whether they are familiar with the student’s native language or not
[ CITATION Ber21 \l 2058 ]. It seems that language and culture are irrelevant in the learning
process.

On the other hand, Larsen-Freeman and Anderson draw on the fact that TBL is strongly influenced
by the communicative approach: “Language is for communication and for ‘doing’. Culture is not
explicitly dealt with although certain tasks might have a cultural focus, such as when students
prepare different ethnic foods to share” [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ].

What areas/skills of language are emphasized

This is one of the greatest differences that truly affect the application of these methods. Carless
agrees that the main difference is that PPP has a strong focus on grammar whereas TBL tends to
be more pragmatic [ CITATION Dav09 \l 2058 ]. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson also state that in
TBL, the meaning dimension of language is emphasized. Depending on the nature of the task, any
of the four skills can be utilized. [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ]. This doesn’t mean that you can’t use
either in different settings, but rather, they are designed with these specific purposes.

Role of the student’s native language

There is no explicit role for the students’ native language in TBL [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ] and this
also seems to be the case for PPP for which the references fail to provide any explicit detailing.
Nevertheless, going back to the culture/language view mentioned above, it’s safe to say that it
isn’t contemplated nor is it necessary for this method.
Evaluation
The evaluation is similar in both methods, where the teacher evaluates according to the outcome
of the final stage of the class. In TBL, it is light of task outcomes and the language they use
[ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ] where the latter will understandably be based on the final production.

How the teacher responds to student errors.

Focus on form is essential to students’ learning. Error correction is done through recasts or
modeling or by giving brief grammar explanations [ CITATION Dia11 \l 2058 ].

Something interestingly different happens with PPP, where there is an order to correction starting
with Self-correction, then Peer-correction, and finally, Teacher correction. This happens during the
Practice stage. [CITATION Sha21 \l 2058 ] and it is more in tune with the inductive approach that
these schools promote [ CITATION Ber21 \l 2058 ].

Advantages

To teach structure, there must be structure so that information may be transmitted as precisely as
possible. Maftoon sums up PPP’s advantages quite nicely: “PPP, in Thornbury’s (1999) view, has a
logic that is appealing to teachers and learners in that it reflects a notion of practice makes
perfect, common in many skills; it allows the teacher to control the content and pace of the
lesson; and as Skehan (2003) remarks, it provides a clear teacher role, in accordance with power
relations often found in classrooms.” [ CITATION Par12 \l 2058 ]. Furthermore, it is recommended
for student-teachers and young professionals for its straight-forward approach.

TBL makes the learners’ own personal experience important contributing factors to the classroom.
When it comes to Task-Based Learning, [CITATION Adv19 \l 2058 ], it’s forte lies within student
participation and motivation as well as the interactive classroom dynamic. It also counts on the
use of prior language, ad experience.

Disadvantages

I agree with Evans [ CITATION Dav99 \l 2058 ] on some of the shortcomings he points out of the
PPP method: the students may not learn, or retain, language as one would suppose. By isolating
the target structures and language, you deprive the student of the possibility of comprehensible
input. The other shortcoming is the belief that grammar could be adequately described and
taught. Grammar is complicated and a math teacher would agree that complicated topics are
better understood when put into a real-life application. If I have an hour for a class and 40 minutes
are spent drilling, I’m losing valuable contextualization time. The overreliance on prompting as a
classroom interaction technique plays a key role in this flaw.

Finally, TBL is not the perfect method either. “There is more to communication than completing
tasks” and there is a danger when not executed properly, you run the risk of fossilizing some
incorrect patterns [ CITATION Adv19 \l 2058 ].

Conclusion

I have had the opportunity to work with both methods in the past and I agree with the authors in
both the advantages and disadvantages that each one entails. The risk of fossilization in TBL is
perhaps the reason why other methods are encouraged for younger teachers. TBL requires more
work on the teacher’s part as far as preparation and creativity while PPP tends to draw more on a
syllabus when the opposite is true during the lesson as such.

On the other hand, PPP tends to be repetitive and can bore most students after a while in addition
to not preparing students enough for real world situations where spontaneity is key. I prefer to
have the opportunity to combine methods depending on the goal: PPP for introducing new
grammar structures and TBL for reinforcing said structures. Ultimately, one mustn’t idealize one
method over another and be able to use either depending on the needs and goals of each class.

References
Anderson, J. (2016). A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal. ELT Journal, 218-227.

Berlitz Corporation. (2021). The Berlitz method. Retrieved from

https://www.berlitz.com/about/the-berlitz-method

Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal
of English Language Teaching, 49-66.
Evans, D. (1999, December ). A Review of 'PPP'. Retrieved from University of Birmingham:
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-
artslaw/cels/essays/secondlanguage/evanssla.pdf

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.

Maftoon, P. (2012). A Critical Look at the Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) Approach:
Challenges and Promises for ELT. Brain Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and
Neuroscience, 31-36.

Shane English Schools. (2021). The PPP Method in Detail: Practice. Retrieved from
https://shaneschools.com/en/ppp-method-detail-practice/

UKEssays. (2019, November). Advantages and Disadvantages of TBL. Retrieved from

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/some-advantages-and-
disadvantages-of-tbl-english-language-essay.php?vref=1