Comments on: 15 reasons why PPP is so unfashionable

By: Ahmed

Ahmed — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:27:45 +0000

VallyP .. i totally agree with you .. a cunning blend of ESA and PPP would do just fine .. teachers are supposed to be equipped with such tools and more .. don’t you just love all these letters? sure do :))

By: VallyP

VallyP — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:02:54 +0000

That’s meant to be ‘for the S part of it’, not ‘if’. Sorry!

By: VallyP

VallyP — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:00:39 +0000

I’ve been teaching EFL for years, but have only just done a TEFL course. In my early years, however, I worked for a Business English school, and PPP was THE way to organise the lessons. Like Rob McLean, I found it gave me a good structure to work with and in fact I still use it, but now more as part of my lessons than the whole time. I like the ESA approach, but find PPP is useful if the S part of it ;-) Don’t you just love all these letters? In fact a short Engage section as a warmer, then a PPP lesson, ending up with a group Activity is what I like to do best. So, fashionable or not, I think it still has its place!

By: Rob McLean

Rob McLean — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:51:35 +0000

I was brought up on PPP, and will say this for it: it enabled me to present an acceptable lesson in the early days of my teaching, one in which learners understood the goals – sorry, learning outcomes – of the session.

I think this clarity is important for elementary level learners. As Gavin Keir implies, using other methodologies (when appropriate) is important if students – sorry, learners – are to remain interested.

Jesus, Smith sounds a bit indoctrinated. Who were your teacher trainers??

By: Gavin Keir

Gavin Keir — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:34:29 +0000

I also found this site while looking up PPP.
Great article.
I have used PPP for a number of years, and I would recommend it, although the trend these days is to focus on communicative and task-based activities (as you pointed out) – I think that these however can often be unstructured, lack focus, and may reduce the context for sufficient teacher-guided instruction. So, while it goes without saying that students are capable of learning a number of things at the same time and out of sequence, I can find that the PPP approach’s good points are, that it:
1) provides a methodogical framework for the direction of the learning focus/agenda; for both the teacher and students,
2) allows for attention to discrete elements of language (grammar, etc.) from which learners can first understand and then develop their productive competence; as all language learning should incorporate both grammar and productive competence focuses, in my mind.

I hope that people reading this can be encouraged to utilise the PPP approach – in practice, it has worked better for me than other forms I have used.

It is also to be noted that as PPP can be too focused on one particular aspect of language, it may be worth integrating three language items (be it grammatical tense, words commonly used together in sentence pattern combinations, thematic aspect) in the lesson. Being ecclectic in your approach (mixing it up) can help make your lessons more interesting for the learner and help provide a change of focus, to look at new aspects of language, and give students new starts to language learning.

By: jesus smith

jesus smith — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:48:54 +0000

I have recently done a celta course. I am very sceptical about PPP. It sounds like something that could have been devised by accountants.

maybe it is POSSIBLE to use PPP in a good way, but unfortunately I did not see this in the celta course. I thought it was a load of hogwash.