PPP

PPP (Present–Practice–Produce) is a lesson framework where the teacher presents a target language item, students practise it in controlled exercises, then produce it in freer communication. It has been the dominant lesson structure in coursebook-driven ELT since the 1960s and remains central to many teacher training programmes (CELTA, Trinity CertTESOL).

Structure

1. Present — Teacher introduces a pre-selected grammar point, lexical set, or function, often via a context or situation
2. Practice — Controlled activities (gap-fills, drills, pattern practice) to rehearse the target item
3. Produce — Freer activities where students use the language in more open communication

The PPP Debate

Defence (Jason Anderson, 2016)

Anderson argues in his article Why Practice Makes Perfect Sense that:

• Recent SLA research supports explicit instruction, including PPP-type lesson structures
• PPP parallels skill learning theory (presentation → controlled practice → automatisation)
• It matches learner expectations and coursebook organisation worldwide
• It is "an appropriate and effective vehicle for teaching grammar, functional language and lexis, especially at lower levels (up to B2)"

Critique (Geoff Jordan)

Jordan identifies a core logical error in Anderson's defence — a non-sequitur:

There is evidence to support explicit (grammar) instruction Ergo there is evidence to support the "PPP paradigm"

Explicit instruction takes many forms (error correction, grammar explanation, vocabulary teaching). PPP involves a very specific type: "the presentation and practice of a linear sequence of pre-selected items of the L2." Evidence supporting the former does not automatically validate the latter.

SLA Research Against PPP

The fundamental challenge to PPP from SLA research:

• L2 learners don't acquire target forms when and how a teacher decrees, but only when developmentally ready
• Acquisition is gradual, incremental, often non-linear (U-shaped, zigzag trajectories)
• Common developmental sequences appear across differences in age, L1, and instructional approach
• "Instruction cannot affect the route of interlanguage development in any significant way" (Ortega, 2009)

These findings challenge the assumption underlying PPP that a synthetic syllabus — teaching items one at a time in a predetermined order — reflects how learning actually happens.

Anderson's Additional Arguments

Anderson also argues that:

• "We have no evidence that PPP is less effective than other approaches"
• "Writers in academia have neither evidence nor theoretical justification for criticising coursebook writers"
• "The research on which writers such as Michael Long have based their promotion of focus on form is scant"

Jordan considers all three assertions false, noting they confuse the popularity and ubiquity of an approach with evidence for its effectiveness (an is–ought fallacy).

Anderson's Evolution from PPP

Anderson's subsequent frameworks represent attempts to refine PPP while retaining its core commitments:

PPP → CAP (Context–Analysis–Practice) → TATE (Text–Analysis–Task–Exploration) → PBL

Critics argue each step dresses up the same synthetic syllabus in new terminology.

References

• Anderson, J. (2016). Why practice makes perfect sense. ELT Education and Development, 19(1), 14–22.
• Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.
• Jordan, G. (2026). Jason Anderson messes with Project-based Learning (PBL). LinkedIn article.