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
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19015.bui
Abstract
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 ( (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.; Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) 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.
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
- 4.1Teachers’ PPP practices and the rationales of their implementation decisions
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusions
- Notes
References
References (40)
Anderson, J. (2017). A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT journal. ELT Journal, 71(2), 218–227.
Anderson, L., & Burns, R. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
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.
Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 191, 49–66.
Choi, T., & Andon, N. (2014). Can a teacher certification scheme change ELT classroom practice? ELT Journal, 68(1), 12–21.
Dang, T. C. T., & Seals, C. (2018). An evaluation of primary English textbooks in Vietnam: A sociolinguistic perspective. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 93–113.
DeKeyser, R. (Ed). (2007). Practice in second language: Perspective from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(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.
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.
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.
(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.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.
Enever, J. (2016). Primary ELT: Issues and trends. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 353–365). London: Routledge.
García Mayo, M. P. (2018). Child task-based interaction in EFL settings: Research and challenges. International journal of English studies, 18(2), 119–143.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243–249.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nguyen, H. M. T. (2011). Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 225–249.
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.
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.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 371, 380–390.
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.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Dang, Nguyen Thuy Vy, Van Thinh Le & Thi Xuan Lan Nguyen
Macalister, John & Le Hong Phuong Thao
Newton, Jonathan
2025. The coursebook in TBLT. In Broadening the Horizon of TBLT [Task-Based Language Teaching, 17], ► pp. 60 ff.
Róg, Tomasz
Gorp, Koen Van, Kris Van den Branden, Jonathan Newton & Matthew D. Coss
2024. Talking it through with teachers. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 4:2 ► pp. 152 ff.
del-Olmo-Ibáñez, María-Teresa, María-Fernanda Medina-Beltrán & José Rovira-Collado
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
