PPP Approach to Language Teaching - Literature review Example

?Running Head: PPP Approach to Language Teaching PPP Approach to Language Teaching [Institute’s PPP Approach to Language Teaching Every being on this earth uses a certain form of communication to send messages to others of its kind. As the being grows more advanced, so does their language, which is why human beings use a particularly complex language. Language has several functions for a human being: it lets one express their feelings, make statements, give orders, and attract partners. This large number of functions is why learning a language is an essential part a human’s development, thus making it one of the most important fields of research for psychologists, doctors, as well as linguists. The process by which a person learns to use a language is language acquisition (Bailey, Madden and Krashen, 235–243, 1974). The learning occurs when the person has grasped how to use the words to express them, and to understand other people when they use these words. In addition, it is not necessarily limited to children. Adults may also undergo language acquisition in case of delayed learning, or in case, they are learning a secondary language (Behrens, 245, 2008). There are several components to this learning, such as understanding how to use syntax, phonetics, and a range of vocabulary (Goodluck, 87, 1991). Furthermore, language is not limited to spoken communication. Sign language is also a common form of language, which consists of using manual signals and gestures to speak. Only human beings have a language that is complex enough to have uniformity in structure, and employs proper vocabulary and syntax (Oxford, 261-275, 1989). Linguists have always been particularly interested in researching the process through which infants learn a language. This process is especially intriguing due to how little input and time these young children require learning a language. Several theorists have presented viewpoints and theories about this phenomenal language acquisition (Macaro, 381, 2010). This paper explores on the usefulness of one of these theories, which is the Presentation, Practice and Production Approach to Language Teaching (PPP approach), and will research the depths of its criticism. It will further try to explore alternative theories by comparing their validity and reliability to PPP, to evaluate this theory further. Language acquisition is an intricate process. It depends especially on the methodology that the teacher employs while teaching the language. These methodologies can be of six different types. One is Collaborative Learning, in which the roles are roughly under division between the student and the teacher, with both of them participating equally in the learning process. It is an interactive method, where the learning occurs by their holding conversations, interviews and having several other experiences (Unsworth, 60-66, 2010). This describes the second and third stages of the PPP approach, which stress on the student putting what they have learnt into practice. The second method is the Cooperative Language Learning, in which the student learns to use a language by socializing and interacting. This again, describes the practice stage of the PPP approach. The third method is Discovery-based learning, which is derived from the theories of the renowned psychologist Piaget. It bases its methodology on constructivist methods, involving the students having to inquire about and discover the several dimensions of the language their learning. This may not synchronize well with the PPP approach due to the vast different in technique and ideology. The fourth method is Engaged Learning (Unsworth, 60-66, 2010). This method makes the learners actively engage in the acquisition of the language, which they do using several tools, such as videos and recordings. Apart from this, there is Problem-based learning, which teaches the student how to use and understand a language by first teaching them a part of it, and then testing them through a question-answer format. In this method, the student may be provided a scenario, which they have to undergo using the language that they are learning (Freeman, 50-69, 2000). This responds to the methods used in PPP and would thus harmonize with that approach. The sixth such method is the Whole Language approach, which is more concerned with the practical application of the language, and explores the language to a depth, which goes past the simple grammar and phonetic-related technicalities, and delves into the semantics of the language. This method aids a student to grasp what the language means, rather than simply learning how to employ it in a conversation. Each of these methods is unique in their methods of language acquisition. They are often administered with various approaches of teaching languages, one of which is the Presentation, Practice and Production approach. While some of these methods compliment this approach very well due to the similar requirements from the teaching process, other methods do not synchronize with PPP well due to numerous reasons. Some of the practices including both the ones that utilize this approach and those that do not are under debate below in detail, revealing in each case the reasons for the respective choices. This paper aims to explore the technicalities and criticisms of the Presentation, Practice, and production (PPP) approach, which experts commonly employ for language acquisition in several parts of the globe. ‘Presentation’ in this method refers to introducing the language, while placing it in the context that it belongs to during the acquisition. This step of the method is highly dependent on the teacher, and constantly gives the students feedback about any mistakes they may have been making. It employs helpful and interesting tools like scenarios, pictures and conversations, all of which provide the learner with basic and simple ways to become familiar with the language. The next stage is the Practice, which involves the application of the learning from the presentation stage. It involves increased interaction, as the learners apply the language by using it to converse with people. Through this, their familiarity with the language increases, and they learn how to use it confidently. The student is less dependent on the teacher in this phase, even though the teacher still plays an important role in the student’s learning. Finally, the stage of production follows, in which the student starts to practice the language freely. The teacher’s role becomes further limited in this final stage, as they now only facilitate the student’s use of the language and even try avoiding correcting any mistakes that the student might make (Lambert, 76, 1987). One of the main strengths of the PPP approach is that it is straightforward and easy to grasp. Teachers often employ this method while teaching, especially when they are new to teaching. This was initially introduced as an alternative to the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), since educators disapproved of the latter. Experts introduced CLT to the world of linguistics in 1970s, basing the teachings strongly on behaviorism and teaching a language simply as a skill rather than as knowledge. Experts in favor of CLT argue that repetitive and mundane grammar exercises are not as effective as practicing verbal communication in the target language. The theory behind this approach is reasonable; however, it still failed to get the approval of experts (Freeman, 98, 2000). In contrast, the PPP approach gained more approval from experts due to the thoroughness with which it introduces the language to the learner. It not only familiarizes them with the use of the language, but also gives the repeated practice in using it, due to which they are soon confidently able to make their own sentences. However, CLT was not rejected altogether, as some parts of it were later combined with other approaches to form PPP, which is a softer communicative approach. This new approach teaches that the teaching should start of conventionally, by teaching the student the basics of grammar and sentence structure. However, it combines an element of CLT, by including a later stage that gives the student a chance to practice their learning in a more practical setting, such as by reading and conversing. Thus, this combination of both methods helps derive the advantages of using both of the approaches. Due to the incorporation of the PPP approach, it ensures that the learner is well versed with the grammar rules before they move on to the verbal practice aspect of their learning. At the same time, the element of CLT included in this approach ensures that the students get adequate practice in speaking this language. This approach is thus, thorough with its language acquisition process, as both the grammatical aspect and the verbal practice aspect, and promises an effective acquisition process. Thus, this would be apparent in every lesson plan for a class, which employs PPP. In the first stage, it would introduce the topic to the students, and then make them perform a simple reading in order for them to get an idea about the passage. Following this would be another passage, which would aim to give the student an idea about how to grasp the important information from the reading (McLaughlin, Rossman and McLeod, 140, 1983). This way, the student will grasp the focus of the language, and start to get an idea about grammatical structure as well. After this, an interactive method of practice follows, consisting mostly of conversations and role-plays, which help the students practice what they have just learnt (Unsworth, 41-48, 2010). This method, however, is not short of faults. Some experts find its focus on grammar to be unnecessarily strong. Also, the production stage program, which differentiates PPP from SLT most of all, is not as effective as theory predicts. The first two stages of the PPP tend to grammatical structure to such an extent that when the students start to practice in the third stage, they try focusing so much on the grammar that they are not able speak coherently (Gu & Johnson, 650-662, 1996). Thus, they are not able to get a proper grasp on the use of the language. Thus, this method should emphasize more on the actual use of the language. Furthermore, this approach has become outdated compared to some of the newer, more effective methods that have surfaced in the past few decades. Finally, some critics argue about how it is employed so frequently because it is easy for new teachers to administer, which makes the purpose and the effect less centered towards the student (Unsworth, 76, 2010). One can understand the shortcomings of this method better by exploring some of the other, more popular methods, which have been introduced to the world of linguistics. Comparing their methods and effectiveness to that of PPP will help for a better and fairer evaluation of this method. One of these is the grammar-translation method, which was popular until the early 1930s. This approach required the students to translate Greek or Latin into English, learn the dictionary explanations or grammar rules, understand sentence structures and pass tests, which proved that they had indeed learned the new structures thoroughly (Liu, 76, 2007). This way, the student would initially learn the structure of the language properly, and was able to learn and improve their reading and writing skills, as well as enhance their vocabulary. Unlike the PPP approach, it would not stress on grammar largely, but would rather attempt to get the students used to the language. The major benefit of this would be that the students would be able to practice speech without worrying about grammar, which would help them learn without such disruptive hindrance. However, it did leave the verbal communication skills unattended, which shows the disadvantage of leaving the PPP approach, since the latter ensures a strong hold on grammar. Other than this, the cognitive approach is also a prominent one, introduced in 1940 and prevailing throughout the 1950s (Katz, 159, 2009). This approach classified the four important factors for learning a language: reading, writing, listening and speaking. It paid special attention to the listening part, and comprehending what one hears. Following this was the Audio-Lingual method, which became immensely popular during the 1960s. It used audiotapes to assist the learning process (Masgoret & Gardner, 175-200, 2003). The students listen to a recording of native speakers who are learning to speak the language, and thus learn with the student. The effectiveness of this program is due to its formation of a habit in the student, which supports B. F. Skinner’s theory of behaviorism. This method did not prove to be entirely successful; however, since the students would not be able to apply their learning properly in real life. Furthermore, their knowledge and comprehension of the language is limited to what they learn during the learning sessions, as there is no real teacher involved in the learning process (Farrell, 65, 1987). This approach is quite different from the PPP approach, as it only believed in the Practice aspect from the three Ps, and did not lay much stress on first letting the student observe the language being spoken, which is the presentation aspect. Resultantly, the student would learn to speak the language, but would not necessarily know how to produce new sentences outside the range of what they have learned in class. Thus, this method fell short when preparing people to speak the language fluently. After this, the Direct Method was introduced in the 1970s, which emphasized on the speaking factor involved in learning a language. Unlike the PPP approach, the classes would consist of directly teaching how to converse in the language, focusing more on pronunciation instead of first studying the details of grammatical structure and other technicalities. This aided the student’s learning, as they learned how to confidently converse in the language and be creative with their speech (Atkinson, 54, 2011). The strength of this method is that it gives student a lot of exposure to conversations in that language, due to which they get much needed practice. This is a highly preferred method, especially in sessions that teach by focusing on speaking and listening. This method could be highly preferred over the PPP approach, due to its high success rates. It did not worry the students too much about proper grammar, which the PPP approach did. Thus, the students were able to learn the language with more confidence and practice. This shows one major weakness of the PPP approach, showing how too much stress on grammar can be more counterproductive than necessary. The Communicative/Natural approach was another approach that was introduced in the 1960s, however it gained popularity no earlier than the 1990s (Sanz, 89, 2005). Tracy Terell and Stephen Krashen developed this approach, dividing the learning process into three stages, all of which focus strongly on the acquisition aspect of learning the most. The first stage focuses on aural comprehension, through which one learns how to comprehend what they are hearing in the target language (Perdue, 125, 1993). The second stage is the early speech production, after which the speech activities stage follows. This stage teaches the student to apply their learning to real life, through which they can gain practice. Further aiding this learning and practice are more interesting and livelier textbooks, as well as the fact that the student is only allowed to use the target language during these practice sessions (Brewster, 104, 1976). The communicative approach can be under linkage with the PPP approach, as each of them try to incorporate elements of observation, production and practice into the learning regimes. Thus, one can attribute this study to be based on PPP to quite an extent, and can expect similar results. The structure of this approach may be a weak one, but it combines various ideal and effective techniques from several other methods of language acquisition. Contemporary teachers of language often employ this method in class due to its effectiveness (Lawson, 120, 1996). The 1970s brought with them, liberal art schools which are more concerned with teaching the student how to comprehend the world around them, including languages. This made the existing language acquisition approaches seem inadequate, since language discourses had become more popular at the time (Ellis, 240-245, 1994). This led to the more frequent use of the communicative approach, which focused importance on language as a means of expressing oneself and its use as a social tool, rather than its command and technicalities. Thus, unlike traditional approaches, it went beyond the traditional approaches and taught the students practical applications of the target language, such as apologizing and asking for directions. “Total Physical Response (TPR)” (Vievra-King, 78, 1996) is yet another method that teachers commonly use to teach languages. This method utilizes the person’s brain and body, by training the individual to connect commands with actions in response. It makes use of the rote-learning process, by using psycho-neuro kinetics and teaching a person how to respond physically to a command. This is also supported by the trace theory, which teaches that it is easier for a person to remember something if they are able to bind it with a memory connection (Jarvis & Salomone, 400 - 402, 1974). This way, TRP helps a person develop a strong connection between verbal activity and the words, which makes remembering easier. James Asher from University of California suggests that one can learn a second language more easily if they try to link it to their first language (Vievra-King, 78, 1996). He connects this theory with how babies learn a language. They initially pick up the words by responding to them with an action, and later including small words with the actions. This shows that if body movements and motor actions are involved in the learning process, this will make the process more speedy and effective by introducing coordination between the mind’s language acquisition and the body’s movements (Clarke, 179, 2008). Asher goes on to mention a link between emotions and language acquisition as well. If the student studies in a less pressurized environment, thinking of language as a class activity rather than a competitive school class, they are able to relax and learn more easily (Corson, 54, 1997). This method can afford to incorporate the PPP approach into its procedures. The presentation part of PPP can easily be carried out using body movements, which are linked to speech. In the same way, the students may be asked to demonstrate with the help of body movements during the practice and production stage. In other words, each of these approaches could complement one another, and produce positive results. The Comprehension approach is another approach, which also focuses mainly on comprehension of a language. It also teaches that comprehension of the target language is the most important aspect of language acquisition, since reading, writing, and speaking are all dependent on it. Another unique method of “language acquisition is ‘the Silent Way’, in which Dr Caleb Gattegno of Egypt developed” (Richman, 398, 1991). Here, the instructor does not speak at all and instead makes the learners speak on cue. They use Cuisenaire rods and other such instruments when teach colors and prepositions (Richman, 398, 1991). This interactive method keeps the student thinking constantly throughout the class, while the instructor stays passive and uses objects to teach. Content-based learning is another approach, which ensures that the student remains the centre of focus in the class, instead of the teacher. Each of these two approaches is more student-based than PPP, and thus allows more focus on the learner, which aids the learning process greatly. It thus helps the students gain confidence and learn better, and is able to apply their learning easily, since they are used to doing so during class. Yet another method is Suggestopedia, developed in 1967 by Bulgarian psychologist Georgi Lozanov. It is a rather unorthodox and esoteric method, which uses music and attractive objects and lights to make the student memorize words. It focuses on attracting the right hemisphere of the brain, which deals with creativity rather than focusing on grammar. This ensures a more holistic approach to language inquisition. This method is employable through either of two branches: “the Suggestive-Accelerative Learning and Teaching or SALT,’ designed by Donald Schuster’s and Lynn Dhority, and Acquisition through Creative Teaching or ACT” (MacWhinney, 98, 1987). This method appears to be more unorthodox than PPP. However, its unique use of the creativity side of the brain shows that it may have untapped potential, and deserves a fair trial before any judgments are made about its effectiveness. One very important and popular method of language learning is “Community Language Learning (CLL) or the Counseling-Learning method” (Lieven, 98, 2011). Charles Curran developed this approach while studying the effect that collective learning of a language has on personality development, rather than just simplifying it to a skill to be learned (Lieven, 98, 2011). The philosophy of SARD is the foundation of CLL as well. ‘S’ in the name refers to Security, which is attained when the student’s become more confident while learning. ‘A’ refers to the Attention, with which the students study the language when they are passionate about it. ‘R’ denotes Retention, which refers to how well the students are able to internalize and retain their learning. Finally, ‘D’ stands for Discrimination, which refers to how the student puts aside the previously learned concepts and notions. This method again, is more concerned with equipping the student with confidence to speak the concerned language, instead of stressing on their vocabulary or grammar. For this reason, it may produce more confident speakers than PPP would, even if their grammar is not as strong as it would have been due to PPP. Total-Immersion technique is another language acquisition method that aids second-language learning, by getting the student involved with the language directly (O’Malley, 67, 1990). There are two types of total-immersion. One of these is effective immersion, where the instructor facilitates the learning of the students using of hand gestures and simple language. Ineffective immersion is the second type, where the teacher speaks only in the target language, not even switching to another language for explaining purposes, which leads to a coldness in the class (Mitchell and Myles, 313, 2004). This again, is different from the more traditional PPP approach as it does not make use of the orthodox methods of teaching languages, such as teaching grammar or requiring practice from students. Each of these is essential parts of a student’s learning process, which is why an incorporation of the PPP approach should come under consideration. Furthermore, there is the Lexical approach, which L. Lewis introduced in the 1990s. He believed that teaching languages is more effective when the teacher does it using lexical phrases (Freeman, 23, 2000). This had two positive outcomes: the learner would get a strong grasp of the grammatical structure required and would at the same time, learn to comprehend the meaning. These outcomes are similar to those that the PPP ensures. However, each of these methods vary greatly in their choice of methods, and perhaps a amalgamation of the two could be considered, which would diminish the restrictive disadvantages of the PPP approach while adding further reliability to the unorthodox Lexical approach. Finally, language can also be learned using the “Task-Based Language learning method (TBLL), also called the task-based language teaching (TBLT)” (Menn, 90, 2000). This method focuses on the utility of the language being taught. The learners must perform a variety of tasks, ranging from difficult to easy, through which they get a command on the language and its practical usage (Menn, 90, 2000). This is a more important area to emphasize on than to teach them all the rules of grammar, and makes the learner more confident in their use of the language. This again negates the points that PPP stresses on strongly, which are to equip the student with a strong grammatical background before requiring them to practice. Considering the success of this contemporary approach, it is perhaps advisable to reconsider the restrictive grammar learning involved in the PPP approach. Perhaps by tweaking the latter to include some form of the former, it would be able to yield as much success as the former. This discussion and comparison of all these different methods proves that there is no single best way to teach a language. Each method has its flaws, and at the same time, it has its unique uses. One can only be deemed to be important than another in certain situations. For instance, using the vignette scenarios and Suggestopedia may be an unsuitable method for children, given their short attention span. This very approach, however, will aid the learning process greatly when teaching adults who are disciplined enough to hand length learning sessions (Naiman, Frohlich, & Stern, 5-7, 1976). Therefore, it is only possible to evaluate the true effectiveness of a method by first considering the situation at hand, such as the learners, the speed required, and the specific needs. This means that instead of comparing PPE with a dozen different approaches and trying to find the best one, the teacher should always apply the Principled Eclecticism approach, which is the method that is most suitable for the situation at hand (Ingram, 58, 1989). It should also be under consideration that PPE has several flaws itself, as do all other methods, and thus cannot be chosen as the one best approach. References Ambridge, B., Lieven, E. V. M. 2011. Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge University Press. Atkinson, D. 2011. Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Taylor and Fraancis. Bailey, N., Madden, C. and Krashen S. D. 1974. Is There a Natural Sequence in Adult Second Language Learning? Language Learning. Volume 24, pp. 235–243. Behrens, H. 2008. Corpora in language acquisition research: history, methods, perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Blom, E., Unsworth, S. 2010. Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Brewster, T., 1976. Language acquisition made practical: field methods for language learners. Lingua House. Calteaux, K, Vievra-King, M. 1996. Language assessment and the national qualifications framework: conference proceedings. HSRC Press. Clahsen, H, Richman, K., 1991. Child language and developmental dysphasia. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Clarke, M. 2008. Language teacher identities: co-constructing discourse and community, Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press. Freeman, D.L., 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Goodluck, H. 1991. Language acquisition: a linguistic introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. Grumberg, O, Kaminski, M., Katz, S. 2009. Languages: From Formal to Natural. Springer. Gu, Y. and Johnson, R. K. 1996. “Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Language Learning Outcomes.” Language Learning. Volume 46, pp. 643–679. Hornberger, N. H., Corson, D. 1997. Research methods in language and education. Springer. Ingram, D. 1989. First language acquisition: method, description, and explanation. Cambridge University Press. Jarvis, G. A. and Salomone, M. 1988. “Review of H. Douglas Brown Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Volume 10, pp. 400-402. Lambert, R. D. 1987. Volume 490 of Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Sage Publications. Lawson, M. J. and Hogben, D. 1996, “The Vocabulary-Learning Strategies of Foreign-Language Students.” Language Learning. Volume 46, pp. 101–135. Liu, J. 2007. English language teaching in China: new approaches, perspectives and standards. Continuum. Macaro, E. 2010. Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition. Continuum International Publishing Group. MacWhinney, B. 1987. Mechanisms of language acquisition. Routledge. Masgoret, A. M., and Gardner, R. C. 2003. “Attitudes, Motivation, and Second Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Conducted by Gardner and Associates.” Language Learning. Volume 53, pp. 167–210. McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. and McLeod, B. 1983. “Second Language Learning: an Information-Processing Perspective.” Language Learning. Volume 33, pp. 135–158. Menn, L. 2000. Methods for studying language production. Routledge. Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. 2004. Second language learning theories. Arnold Publishers. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H. & Todesco, A. 1976. “The good language learner.” Research in Education Series No. 7. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot A. U. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L. 1989. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House Publisher. Perdue, C., 1993. Adult Language Acquisition: Field methods. Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., Farrell, T. S. C. 1987. Foreign language instruction: a national agenda. Sage Publications. Sanz, C. 2005. Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: methods, theory, and practice. Georgetown University Press. Read More