The following task comes from material originally used on our Delta Module One course to prepare learners for Paper 2/3. If you are using it for this purpose, you may find the following introduction useful. If not, just skip this part and go straight to the article itself.
The answer
to this task contains 15 basic points, and therefore would gain 30/30 of the marks
available for the “breadth” of the response. Five of them are elaborated and
would therefore probably gain some depth marks. This puts the answer firmly in the distinction average
category.
As you read
through the answer you may notice that many points and examples have been
“recycled” from other answers to tasks in this series. In the exam, you don’t
have thinking time –it’s therefore essential that you already have points in mind that you can adapt as necessary to the specific questions. Notice that five of the answers go beyond stating the basic point to include reference to and explanations of theories, examples from personal teaching experience and the other depth categories outlined in the Cambridge Handbook on p.16. If you’ve prepared
and repeated enough of these in your preparation for task 2/1, they will come
to mind spontaneously in the exam.
TASK
This task discusses the following statement: The practice of breaking down language into discrete items or areas for formal presentation, explicit rule giving and controlled practice is of very limited value.
It then asks:
a) What arguments can be put forward in support of this statement?
b) What are the arguments against it?
c) How do you achieve "the best of both worlds" in your teaching?
SUGGESTED
ANSWER
a) Arguments supporting the criticism
1. The Presentation – Practice- Production approach described in the statement focuses on “Grammar McNuggets” (Thornbury) - ie preselected linguistic items to be learnt in a specific order - but this may not be realistic in terms of the actual processes of second language acquisition. Many writers ( Thornbury but also eg Krashen) argue that acquisition does not occur in this “predictable” way. Krashen suggests that each learner will be ready to acquire the “next” item (which he calls “ i+1”) but we have no way of predicting what this is.
2. Similarly it may not be realistic to expect learners to acquire the item immediately in one lesson or even one unit, moving from no knowledge of the item to its spontaneous use in a production stage. This recurrent problem led to the contradiction in the PPP approach where some proponents argued that it “didn’t matter” if the TL was not used in the Production stage. However, logically this would seems to make the stage irrelevant to the lesson. Others argued that the Ls still be should be “pushed” into using the TL - but this again shows that expecting acquisition to take place immediately was an unrealistic aim.
3. Even when Ls did seem to have mastered the item within the lesson or unit, it was frequently noted that in subsequent lessons it had been forgotten and no longer used spontaneously where it would have been appropriate (Willis). This suggested that there was something wrong about or missing from the approach.
4. PPP could be appropriate for dealing with grammar, but did not focus in any depth on skills development or discourse, and downplayed a focus on lexis. This led to a "top-heavy" syllabus where grammar was given priority and other areas received less attention.
5. An analytic grammar based approach (whether PPP or any other) is not suitable for very young or primary age learners who have not yet developed the cognitive skills necessary to cope with abstractions such as rules of form and use. These Ls are still able to acquire the language in the same way as they acquired their L1 – by exposure to meaningful language use.
6. It may also be unsuitable for learning contexts such as summer courses in Britain where the class members all come from different backgrounds and, even if their general level has been ascertained, the T cannot be sure exactly what each person does/does not know. Using an approach based on a pre-determined syllabus might therefore mean that a lot of the learners were covering items which they had already acquired.
7. Similarly, a PPP approach used for a revision lesson could lead to the learners feeling “But we’ve done this before” and to frustration at apparent lack of progress.
8. Traditional PPP was often very T-centred, The presentation stage was generally T-led, with the T. setting up a context, feeding in the TL, and then asking concept questions to elicit rules of form and use. These would often be answered by the strongest Ls in the class (especially in larger classes and/or if the T didn’t nominate), leaving the others fairly uninvolved. Depth of cognitive processing was therefore fairly shallow and may have led to the problem in point 3
9. Swain’s “Output Hypothesis” suggests that Ls acquire language by attempting to use what they know to communicate what they personally want to say, reformulating misunderstood language until they succeed. A traditional PPP approach leaves little time for this (except possibly in the use of non-target language items in the production stage).
c) Arguments
against the criticism
10. Point 8 above is, however, more a criticism of the way the PPP sequence was handled than a criticism of a “Grammar McNuggets” approach itself. More recent approaches have retained a focus on grammar but favoured a text-based methodology where the T no longer leads the presentation but Ls work on Guided Discovery activities, working out the rules for themselves. The text may be a reading a listening text (thus allowing for receptive skills work first), a conversation between the learner (as in Thornbury's Dogme approach) or the learners' own written work - but whatever is used, the language is presented in a context of real language use rather than being "broken down" - ie presented in isolation "for its own sake". The emergent language focused on may include any language system or subskill, thus avoiding the "top-heavy" approach described above while still allowing ample room for grammar focus. The active approach of GD and the personalisation involved in the speaking/writing activities increases depth of cognitive processing, which should also improve retention.
The approach may be the most
suitable for various learner types and learning contexts – eg :
11. Analytic learners (McCarthy) who want to come to a full understanding of the rules of form and use before being asked to use the language.
12. Similarly, learners with a preference for systematic lessons where they first fully understand the language, and then are asked to manipulate and finally use it in activities which increase only gradually in level of communicative challenge. (Serialist Learners - Pask). These learners appreciate a step-by-step approach with simpler CP activities provided before they are asked to use the language to communicate. They would be uncomfortable with approaches where they were “thrown straight in” to communicating – eg TBL .
13. Very large classes where a lockstep approach makes it easier for the teacher to check that every learner has understood, produced correct answers etc.
d) The best of both worlds
14. Although I frequently use a pre-determined syllabus and PPP/Guided Discovery approach in my teaching, I also leave ample time for focus on and explanation of emergent language (as suggested by Thornbury and developed into the method Dogme) and the use of techniques similar to those advocated bt Demand High ELT to practice it “on the spot” (see Thornbury P is for Push).The argument here is that, as the language focused on is that which the learners have wanted to use to express personal ideas, the input will be more engaging and processed at greater cognitive depth than language chosen by the teacher – thus resulting in greater retention, ie learning. This meets the criteria for Swain’s Output Hypothesis. For example, I would leave ample time after any productive activity (be it a warm-up discussion or Production stage activity) for a full class follow-up. During the follow-up, I would focus not only on correction of the target language but also on emergent language providing a) correction and explanation as necessary; b) praise for and recycling of any language used by Ls which we’d covered in previous lessons; c) upgrading of correct language to an expression that reflected the learner’s level. Eg if I heard a B2 learner say “It was raining heavily”. I might focus on the fact that the expression was correct and appropriate, but then upgrade it that but by introducing and practising “It was pouring with rain” as an alternative.
15. An alternative format, useful in situations such as
those in points 6 and 7, is the Test - Teach -Test format. This starts with a
productive activity that allows the T. to diagnose whether the learners do in
fact need a formal re-presentation and practice of language already covered,
whether they can go on to more complex items. This prevents the problem
outlined in point 7 and also allows for differentiation. For example, if recycling
polite requests, the T may notice some learners having problems with the
structure “Would you mind +Ving”, while others are using it accurately. It can
therefore be focused on in the Teach stage (which may be identical to
presentation and Controlled practice) and remedial help given to the weaker Ls.
At the same time however, the expression “I wonder if you’d mind Ving” can be
introduced. In the practice activities that follow, the weaker Ls can practice
the basic structure and the others use the new version. All Ls therefore feel
they’ve learnt something new.
