Approaches to the Language Focus Stage – Teaching House, Blended Delta Module 1 preparation course.

In this section of the course we will be looking at the teaching of language systems. We will begin by
considering what the language systems are and how they can be integrated into lessons. We will look at a
number of lesson frameworks and the assumptions and principles behind their conception, including PPP
and alternatives to the PPP model. We will also consider different ways that teachers can convey
information about language systems to our learners. This will help you throughout the exam, particularly
in paper 2, which is more concerned with teaching methodology than knowledge of language itself.

This knowledge will be tested in:

 Paper 2 Task 4

 Paper 2 Tasks 2&3

 Paper 1 Tasks 1&2

Before we start our exploration of language systems lessons, let us first consider what
the language systems are. Consider from the following list which are systems of
language and which are skills. Then formulate a way to explain the difference between
systems and skills.

Grammar
Reading
Writing
Pronunciation
Listening
Vocabulary
Speaking
Discourse

Of course that was probably quite easy. Perhaps formulating a definition was more complicated. Here are
the answers

Systems Skills
Grammar Reading
Vocabulary Listening
Pronunciation Writing
Discourse Speaking

And here is a possible definition. Was yours better / more complete?

Systems are language knowledge and skills are language use.

Of course the two are interconnected. We can't speak without using vocabulary, pronunciation and
arguably grammar and discourse. Similarly we wouldn't be able to learn grammar without reading or
hearing it first. The conceptual difference between the two is useful though when we, as language
teachers, consider the aims of our lesson and therefore how best to achieve them.

Let's start by considering grammar. In your experience, do learners like learning

grammar? Why do you think this is?

In my experience, adult learners on the whole DO like learning grammar, contrary to

what I believed when I began teaching. I always attribute this to the fact that there are,
theoretically at least, a finite number of grammar rules. By learning just one of these
rules learners can generate an infinite number of sentences. This must be very satisfying
- in fact, I know that for me as a language learner it is very satisfying.

What is NOT so satisfying, and this is where grammar's bad reputation may come from,
is the number of examples which don't seem to follow the rule. How often do
elementary coursebooks teach "some is used for affirmative statements, any is used in
questions and with negatives"? And very quickly can we come up with perfectly correct
sentences which flout this rule:

"I like any type of pasta" (an affirmative statement using 'any')
"Would you like some coffee?" (a question using 'some')
"I don't like some herbal teas. Others I love!" (a negative statement using 'some')

Think of another grammar rule which coursebooks often teach which has so many

exceptions that learners may consider it to not be worthwhile teaching/learning.

Here are just a couple of examples of grammar rules which have many exceptions:

 = the rule

What about....?? = the exceptions.

 1st conditional or "real future conditional" = if + present simple, will + base form. e.g. if you go,
you'll see him.

(What about "if you go, you might see him. If you go you are definitely going to see him. If you are going
you're certain to see him, If I've finished by then I'll give you a hand, etc.??
  Will for spontaneous decisions (I'll answer it!), going to for plans (I'm going to travel the world
when I retire) and present continuous for future arrangements (I'm visiting Sam this weekend).

What about "I'm going to give you a ride to the station", "I'll see Sam on Saturday", "I'm going to help you
with your luggage", etc.??

 present simple for habitual actions (I go to yoga every Friday), opinions (Murakami writes
brilliantly), facts (water boils at 100 degrees C/ 212 degrees F), timetabled future events (the class
starts at 9am).

What about "so she walks straight up to him and asks him for his autograph!", "14 March 1879 - Einstein is
born. 1880 - his family moves to Munich", etc.??

 We don't use the continuous aspect for state verbs (I am understanding you), verbs of the senses
(it is smelling very fresh) or verbs of preference (I am liking pizza).

What about the McDonald's (TM) slogan "I'm loving it!"??

I'm sure you have come up with many more. So, if grammar rules are so flexible and if there are so many
exceptions, is it worth teaching them?

Grammar – to teach it or not to teach it.

That is the question.

When we teach grammar explicitly we are inherently taking an atomistic view of

language. The opposite to this, of course, would be a holistic view. Traditionally the
western intellectual and educational mode is atomistic. An area or field is broken apart
into its parts and each is studied in detail. These parts, theoretically at least, then
combine together to give a more complete picture of the whole. In language teaching
terms this could be seen as a "bottom up" approach.

Of course as communicative language teachers, we also consider the wider context of

language and probably wouldn't consider teaching functional language without
attention to appropriate intonation patterns, or future forms without considering the
discourse markers that they are commonly used with, or delexicalized verbs like 'get',
'be', 'take' without helping learners with their commonly associated collocates.

Form vs function

This is essentially the difference between the structure of a language item and its
functional meaning or “illocutionary force”. In other words, what the speaker or writer
really meant. A few examples of this might be:
Utterance Superficial structural Possible illocutionary
 meaning force
“Those chips look delicious.” Statement of fact “I’d like one of those
chips”
“It’s 9.15.” informing Reprimand for being late
“fair enough” agreement disagreement
Here is an example from Tolkein’s The Hobbit in which a few possible (but unusual)
meanings of “Good morning” are explored. The distinction between Bilbo’s intended
meaning and his received meaning is clear:
"Good Morning!" said Bilbo, and he meant it. The sun was shining, and the grass was
very green. But Gandalf looked at him from under long bushy eyebrows that stuck out
further than the brim of his shady hat.
"What do you mean?" he said. "Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a
good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is
a morning to be good on?"
"All of them at once," said Bilbo. "And a very fine morning for a pipe of tobacco out of
doors, into the bargain. ...
"Good morning!" he said at last. "We don't want any adventures here, thank you! You
might try over The Hill or across The Water." By this he meant that the conversation
was at an end.
"What a lot of things you do use Good morning for!" said Gandalf. "Now you mean
that you want to get rid of me, and that it won't be good till I move off."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-J-R-Tolkien/dp/0261102664/ref=sr_1_3?
ie=UTF8&qid=1349723760&sr=8-3&keywords=The+hobbit

We can usually figure out a speaker’s intended meaning based on their tone and the
context. Communicative language teaching, quite rightly, advocates raising our learners’
awareness of an utterance’s illocutionary force or functional meaning. As Widdowson
states in his book “Teaching Language as Communication” (1978, Oxford: OUP)
http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Language-Communication-Applied-
Linguistics/dp/0194370771/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349723842&sr=1-
1&keywords=teaching+language+as+communication

:
“…this sentence (the policeman is crossing the road) might serve a number of
communicative functions, depending on the contextual and/or situational
circumstances in which it were used. Thus, it might take on the value of part of a
commentary…or it might serve as a warning or a threat, or some other act of
communication. If it is the case that knowing a language means both knowing what
signification sentences have as instances of language usage and what value they
take on as instances of use, it seems clear that the teacher of language should be
concerned with the teaching of both kinds of knowledge.” (Widdowson 1978)

Do you think it is worth focusing on a speaker’s illocutionary force in the language

classroom? What might be some of the pros and cons?
Now read the following extract from Michael Swan’s article “A critical look at the
Communicative Approach (1)” in the ELT Journal (1985) in which he responds to
Widdowson:

Widdowson asserts, effectively, that a student cannot properly interpret

the utterance The policeman is crossing the road (or any other utterance, for that
matter) if he knows only its propositional (structural and lexical) meaning.
In order to grasp its real value in a specific situation, he must have learnt an
additional rule about how the utterance can be used. Very well. For the
sake of argument, let us imagine that an international team of burglars
(Wilberforce, Gomez, Schmidt and Tanaka) are busy doing over a
detached suburban house. Wilberforce is on watch. A policeman comes
round the corner on the other side of the road. Wilberforce reports this to
the others. Schmidt, who learnt his English from a communicativelyoriented
multi-media course in a university applied linguistics department,
interprets this as a warning and turns pale. Gomez and Tanaka, who
followed a more traditional course, totally fail to grasp the illocutionary
force of Wilberforce's remark. Believing him to be making a neutral comment
on the external environment, they continue opening drawers. Suddenly
Wilberforce blurts out, 'The policeman is crossing the road', and
disappears through the back door, closely followed by Schmidt. Gomez and
Tanaka move calmly to the wardrobe. They are caught and put away for
five years. Two more victims of the structural syllabus.

This is a fun critique and in reality the truth probably lies somewhere in between. In fact, in the
rest of this article, Swan does concur that sometimes it is useful to focus on the functional
meaning of language – not just the structural elements - but his point is valid and one which we
should consider when planning to teach and while teaching language.

“Presentation”/ “Clarification”/ “Language focus”.

A lot of what we will look at on the Teaching House Blended Delta course regards
describing language. How verbs operate in English, what lexis is and how we can talk
about it, what areas of phonology help us describe it as a system, etc. Paper one mostly
concerns this description of language and how that description relates to the language
classroom. Paper two in contrast, is more about teaching, methodology and pedagogy -
having described language, what then do teachers and students do with it in order to
most effectively learn it?

Think back to before you did your initial teacher training or got your first teaching job
(whichever came first). You probably imagined that you would spend a lot of your time
as a teacher ‘explaining’ language to a group of students at the board. This may have
been based on your own language learning experience - my Spanish teachers spent a
LOT of time explaining how to use "radical changing verbs" and "the imperfect
subjunctive", etc. When you actually began teaching yourself, however, you will quickly
have found out the pitfalls of ‘explanation’. (For a start you find yourself using language
more complex than the language you are ‘explaining’!). Your teacher educators would
probably have told you of more learner-centered, more visual and less verbal ways of
focusing on language. And you will also have found that language focus is not something
you spend all of your classroom time doing! But of course it does remain a crucial part of
a teacher’s work - we are language teachers after all.

What are the implied differences in attitude between a teacher who might conduct a
"language presentation" and a teacher who includes a "language focus" stage? These
are, in essence, the same thing. They both suggest that a particular piece of target
language has been chosen (e.g. collocations with the verbs make/do, modal verbs of
obligation/permission, functional phrases used to accept/refuse an invitation, etc.) but
there are some differences in the use of the terminology. Make some notes on your
thoughts before moving on to look at the commentary.

What is the difference in focus between a “language presentation” and a “language

focus stage”?

Language Presentation vs Language Focus:

A language “presentation” implies a few things which are not necessarily true.
 The first of which is that it assumes that it is the first time the learners have come
across the language point. We know, of course, that the vast majority of the
time, this is not the case. Learners bring with them previous language learning
experience as well as a lot of prior exposure to language. In this sense, we are
not presenting language to our learners (on a silver platter / sparkling white
board!).

 It also may imply a teacher-centered stage where the teacher stands at the board
and elicits and uses various methods to convey and check learners have
understood the meaning, use, form and pronunciation of the target
structure/lexis/functional language.

 Of course these days a lot of the explicit focus on language is done with Ss
figuring out and negotiating meaning individually or with a partner by using
“guided discovery” activities. These activities are sometimes indicated by
formatting like “Grammar spot” boxes in Headway or “Analysis” sections in
 Cutting Edge.

Cunnigham and Moore, New Cutting Edge intermediate, Longman, page 27

From Soars and Soars, New Headway Intermediate, Oxford, page 31

Other times they are integrated in the normal coursebook page as is the case
with exercise b here.
From Oxenden and Latham-Koenig, American English File 3, Oxford page 24

 The term “presentation” may also allude to a lesson which is entirely

dedicated to one structure or one area of lexis. This is a very atomistic view
of language and language teaching. The underlying assumption being that
learners learn language much like a builder builds a brick wall - we teach one
“brick” and learners acquire it. We teach another “brick” and learners
acquire it, adding another brick to their wall of English learning.

As we know through experience, however, this is not the case. Learning is a

much more organic process than this, more like a garden in which certain
elements grow, recede, die, come back, regrow and develop into a fully
developed garden of language over time.
  It may imply a “transmission model” of teaching whereby the learners only learn
something if it is taught by the teacher. Of course, we know that this is not the
case. Learners often learn things additional to the lesson’s target language. It
may be the case (and often is in my experience) that learners don’t learn what
we intended at all and indeed pick up something completely different! I
remember a class where I was furiously “presenting” the structures “used to”
and “would” in the context of the differences in my daily routine between the UK
and Spain. The students were dutifully answering my concept checking
questions for a while but then one of them asked about collocations with ‘have’
like “have a shower”, “have a coffee”, “have lunch” (rather than “take” which
was his previous understanding). The whole class perked up and asked a lot of
questions about these vocabulary items, while my target grammar was left,
somewhat abandoned on the other side of the board. I ploughed ahead with the
grammar presentation but the lesson seemed rather lackluster compared with
the vocabulary element – and perhaps if I had been more experienced I would
have gone with the flow a little more to capitalize on my learners’ interest.

Historical approaches – attitudes towards teaching grammar.

Consider the approaches / methods from the previous units on the Blended Delta program.
Would each one advocate the explicit teaching of grammar rules?

Think back to the session about the history of approaches and methods in language teaching.
Which of the following approaches / methods / theorists would advocate teaching grammar
rules and which would not? Consider whether these rules would be taught explicitly or
implicitly.

Grammar Translation
 – yes. Rules were explicit.

The Direct Method

- Yes but more implicitly.

Audiolingualism
- Rules are not explicitly stated. Ss learned through rote learning / repetition of language
rather than cognitively processing rules.

Krashen’s Natural Approach

– no. Comprehension (Input +1) is enough to lead to acquisition.

Community Language Learning

– not explicitly. Learners were told how to say what they needed to say. Rules
could be implied by the learners.

Communicative Language Teaching

– Yes. Grammar is seen as helpful to communication. Rules may be explicit or
implicit depending on the methodology, but many communicative syllabuses are
explicitly grammar based.

The Lexical Approach

- yes. While the focus is on lexis, rules as to how that lexis operates are certainly
encouraged (e.g. forming of compound nouns, changing the tense of verbs in lexical
chunks, etc.)1

And why not consider what Chomsky might think of teaching grammar rules too.
– in favor of rules as they allow us to engage cognitively with language and
therefore match the way language (L1) is learned.

Deductive vs Inductive

Deductive grammar teaching is when rules are explicitly stated and examples are generated from
the rule. The rules come first and examples come out of the rule.
Inductive grammar teaching, on the other hand, still involves rules but these are worked out
from examples by the learner, in conjunction with feedback from the teacher. The language
comes first and the rule comes out of the examples.

Inductive (rule-discovery) vs Deductive (rule-driven) approaches

Quiz!

1 In Implementing the Lexical Approach, Lewis states: “ Grammatical knowledge permits the creative re-
combination of lexis in novel and imaginative ways, but it cannot begin to be useful in that role until the learner
has a sufficiently large mental lexicon to which grammatical knowledge can be applied” (2008:15)
http://moodle.teachinghouse.com/mod/quiz/view.php?id=400
Read the description of the approach to teaching the present perfect continuous.
Decide if it is Inductive or Deductive. Write I for inductive and D for deductive.
1) Students study rule (of form and use): they then practice it via Murphy Grammar
in Use style exercises.
2) T creates a need for the TL (e.g. Goldilocks – who’s been sleeping in my bed?)
and feeds it in. Some Ss (those who are ‘ready’) notice the use of the structure
and learn it as a chunk.
3) T gives a translation of a grammar rule into L1, highlighting form. Ss practice by
translating more sentences or via personalized sentences.
4) Example illustrative situation(s) in which the structure is either embedded or
from which the structure is elicited. Ss then apply their understanding of the rule
or simply interpret it.
5) Give Ss sample sentences, some of which are correct and some not. Ss sort the
sentences into correct and incorrect and state the rule. T gives feedback.
6) T waits until Ss make mistakes with the structure and corrects them via
reformulation without explanation.
7) Ss comprehend a text which has examples of the target structure. They then
reconstruct the text, compare it with the original and ‘notice’ the form and use
(e.g. dictogloss).
8) T elicits the differences between the use of the present perfect and the present
perfect continuous in terms of meaning/use and form. Ss then practice with their
own examples.
9) Students solve problems using what they already know about the present perfect
simple and present continuous. E.g. “make one sentence which means the same
as these two sentences:
Jackie is driving.
She started driving six hours ago.
T then gives feedback, states the rule and provides practice.
10) Ss study authentic examples (e.g. from a concordance) and work out what they
understand to be the rule. They then apply this in practice activities. T provides
feedback on correctness and perhaps asks concept checking questions but
doesn’t explicitly state the rule.

MINI-TASK: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a deductive approach and an
inductive approach? Brainstorm as many as you can, then scroll down and read Scott
Thornbury’s thoughts on the matter.
From Thornbury, S. How to Teach Grammar, 1999, Pearson Longman

PPP
As you probably remember PPP stands for: Present-Practice-Produce (or Presentation-Practice-
Production)
• P: Present. There is focus on the meaning and form of a particular piece of target language.
• P: Practice. Learners practice the language in a controlled way, perhaps using substitution
drills, gapfills or something similar
• P: Produce. Students practice the language in a freer more autonomous way.

Look at the following descriptions of language lessons. Which one(s) are PPP lessons and which
are not?

Lesson 1:
The teacher shows the class photos of herself from the past. The photos show that she used to dance
ballet, she used to have blue hair, the boy she used to date, etc. The teacher asks questions like “do I
have blue hair now?” “did I dance ballet once or many times?” to establish that the situations were
true in the past but are not true now, the actions happened more than once and the states were for an
extended period. She either elicits or provides the target structure of used to… The teacher elicits the
form for the affirmative, negative and question and drills the pronunciation.

Ss are then introduced to a reformed character, Sandra. They then manipulate the form of various
sentences e.g.

+ Sandra _____________________(smoke) but she doesn’t anymore.

• - She _________________________(not eat healthily) but now she lives on fresh vegetables.

+ She ____________________ (weigh) 250 pounds.

? - __________ Sandra __________________ (drink alcohol)? Yes, a bottle of wine every night!

Ss then discuss the things that they used to do when they were a child.

Lesson 2:

T shows the following diagram and explains that when we have an idea about the future and say it at the
same time, we use will or ‘ll:

T highlights the contraction of will with various subjects and the use of the base form:
T: answer the door. Susan
Ss: Susan’ll answer the door
T: We
Ss: We’ll answer the door

T explains if we have an idea about the future and then tell someone later, we use “be going to”:

T elicits / highlights various forms of ‘be’ with different subjects.

T: have the steak. I?
Ss: I am going to have the steak.
T: Tim
Ss: Tim is going to have the steak.
T gives various scenarios and Ss decide whether will or going to would be more appropriate: e.g. “the
phone rings. You decide to answer it” or “yesterday you decided to visit your aunt next weekend”.
Ss then talk about their own plans for next weekend, next year and in 10 years time using will and going
to.

Lesson 3:
Ss are given a text comparing the teacher’s home town with New York. The text contains information
about the cost of living, the types of entertainment, the architecture and the culture. Students read
the text and complete a gist comprehension task like “Which city does the writer prefer?”.

The teacher then elicits example phrases from the text which contain comparatives and records them
on the board. T elicits meaning by having Ss plot prices etc. on a cline. T elicits the rules of form,
including spelling and changes for multi-syllable adjectives and adjectives that end in –y. She also
drills and highlights pronunciation on the board.

Ss are then given pairs of nouns with an adjective and they have to make true sentences. E.g. bike car
(fast) – a car is faster than a bike.

Ss are then put in pairs. They have to write sentences comparing themselves but keeping their
identities a mystery e.g. “student A’s hair is longer than student B’s”, “Student B is taller than student
A” . The sentences are then read aloud and the other students have to guess which pair wrote the
sentences.

In fact, all three of these lessons could be considered PPP. The language doesn’t need to be
“presented” at the board by the teacher, though this is how some traditionalists may see it. If
the language is clarified before it is practiced productively and if this practice moves from
controlled to freer, then that lesson fits in with the PPP framework.

How effective is PPP?

Here are a few comments from the literature on the effectiveness of the PPP paradigm:
• “Any paradigm based on or remotely resembling Present-Practice-Produce is wholly
unsatisfactory, failing as it does to reflect either the nature of language or the nature of
learning.” “The PPP paradigm is, and always was, nonsense” (Michael Lewis in Willis and Willis,
Challenge and Change in Language Teaching.
Macmillan. 1996: 11).)

It’s true that if we put too much hope in the PPP model, we could be disappointed. If we expect
learners to employ the language that we present perfectly then we are extremely likely to be let
down. Even the most inexperienced teacher, however, knows that this would be an unrealistic
expectation – possibly through their experiences as language learners as well as language
teachers. But to say that PPP is entirely ineffective might be a case of throwing the baby out
with the bath water.

Of course PPP has its deficiencies. When Lewis says that PPP doesn’t reflect the nature of
learning, he is right – learning is a far more cognitively complex activity. Learners are not simply
vessels to be filled with knowledge. Learning is a much more interactive and complex activity
than merely being transmitted by a teacher in one language presentation.

Overall PPP can be considered a reasonable, if limited, model - one of many

for getting to grips with new language. It is unlikely to go away, nor indeed should it.

.
TASK: The assumptions behind PPP

Now let’s look at a classic PPP lesson plan. Read the following description of a standard PPP type
lesson. What principles of learning and / or language are implicit in each stage of the
procedure? Make some notes, compare your ideas with ours and post any additional ideas in
the discussion forum.

1) Motivate the teaching of structures by showing how they are needed in real-life
communication. Dramatize a situation (shopping for clothes for example) by reminding
students of something they have read or heard, or by deepening their knowledge of
something already taught (e.g. the name of students’ clothing. T asks “what would you
need to know if you went into a store to buy a (shirt)? Ss may answer “size, material,
price, color, style, etc.
2) Review the familiar items e.g. calendar, time, name of objects auxiliary verbs in the
target language that will be needed to introduce, explain or practice the new item.
3) Use the new structure (adjective order, for example) in a brief utterance in which all the
other words are known to the students. A picture may help to convey meaning.
4) Model the utterance several times (a black silk shirt)
5) Engage in full class, half class, group and individual repetition of the utterance.
6) Give several additional sentences in which the structure is used. Class and groups will
repeat after you. (a yellow wool scarf, brown linen pants)
7) Write two of the sentences on the board. Underline the new structure and (where
relevant) use curved arrows to the other words in the utterance to which the structure is
related.
8) Point to the underlined structure as you ask questions which will guide learners to
discover the sounds, the written form, the position in the sentence and the grammatical
function of the new structure.
9) Help students to verbalize the important features of the structure
10) Engage students in varied guided oral practice.
11) Require them to consciously select the new grammatical item from contrasting ones
they had learned in the past.
12) Help them to use the structure with communicative expressions and familiar (or new)
notions.
Adapted from Finocchiaro, Mary and Christopher Brumfit 2. 1983. The functional-notional
approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2 Brumfit was one of the first language teaching theorists to question the PPP model and suggest that language
use should come before language analysis – the stepping stones towards more task based approaches.
1. Motivate the teaching of structures by showing how they are needed in real-life
communication. Dramatize a situation (shopping for clothes for example) by
reminding students of something they have read or heard, or by deepening their
knowledge of something already taught (e.g. the name of students’ clothing. T
asks “what would you need to know if you went into a store to buy a (shirt)? Ss
may answer “size, material, price, color, style, etc.
 Language performs a communicative purpose.
 Language is best presented in context – in this case a real-life context.
 Ss learn better if they are motivated.
 Ss learn better if they are involved.
 Language needs recycling if it is to be memorized.
2. Review the familiar items e.g. calendar, time, name of objects auxiliary verbs in
the target language that will be needed to introduce, explain or practice the new
item.
 One area of language needs to be ‘mastered’ before moving on to learn more
language.
3. Use the new structure (adjective order, for example) in a brief utterance in which
all the other words are known to the students. A picture may help to convey
meaning.
 Learning is more effective if we ensure the co-text is familiar. Known to
unknown
 Learners will learn better if they are focused only on the target language.
 Language needs to be recycled in order to ‘stick’
 Language is learned bit by bit, like a wall. Once they have learned this
structure then they will be one brick closer to mastery
4. Model the utterance several times (a black silk shirt)
5. Engage in full class, half class, group and individual repetition of the utterance.
 Language is best heard first then seen.
 The written form may distract learners from correct pronunciation.
 Repetition reinforces language – forms good habits.
 Drilling leads to intake
6. Give several additional sentences in which the structure is used. Class and
groups will repeat after you. (a yellow wool scarf, brown linen pants)
 Learners can notice rules for themselves (from examples – i.e. inductively)
without them being explicitly stated.
 Learners benefit from seeing how the language can be applied before they
experiment with it themselves.
7. Write two of the sentences on the board. Underline the new structure and
(where relevant) use curved arrows to the other words in the utterance or to
which the structure is related. In this case a chart may be created to generate
the ‘rules’ of adjective order.
 8. Point to the underlined structure as you ask questions which will guide learners
to discover the sounds, the written form, the position in the sentence and the
grammatical function of the new structure.
 Visual reinforcement and having a written record can facilitate learning.
 Grammar rules are worth teaching.
 Language learning is a conscious process.
 Grammar can be learned inductively – from examples to rules.
 Explicit knowledge of rules leads to better language use.
9. Help students verbalize the rule and features of the language
 An explicit approach to grammar rules facilitates learning.
 Rules should be explicit and Ss should be conscious of them and able to
verbalize them.
10. Engage students in varied controlled oral practice.
 Being cognitively engaged with language helps acquisition.
 Accuracy comes before fluency.
 Input should lead to immediate output. Ss are not allowed a silent period.
11. Require them to consciously select the new grammatical item from contrasting
ones they had learned in the past.
 Correct and accurate output is desirable.
 It is useful for learners to differentiate between language structures
consciously.
 Cognitive involvement leads to better learning.
12. Help them to use the structure with communicative expressions and familiar (or
new) notions.
 Language can only be applied to new contexts once it has been used in familiar
ones.
 Communication facilitates learning.
 Accuracy comes first and leads to fluency.

If you got any more, post them into the “Principles underlying PPP” discussion forum.

Alternatives to PPP
So, if PPP is limited in its scope / advantages, what other tools do we have in our Language Focus
Toolbox? Look at the following and consider whether you think you have used each
‘approach’3 / method yourself.

PPP via a lecture

PPP via a text
PPP via a situation
Test-Teach-Test
3 I use speech marks here as, if we use Richards and Rogers’s definition of these terms, an ‘approach’ is a much
broader concept than is expressed here. Indeed, all of these would fit within the Communicative Approach.
These would more correctly be defined as methods, or in some cases (Guided Discovery) as ‘procedures’. In ELT
literature, however, these terms are used much more loosely.
TBL (Task Based Learning)
Guided Discovery
Noticing*

*A Note on Noticing

Rod Ellis originally proposed the idea of noticing. It is somewhat of a bridge between, on the
one side, Krashen’s idea that simply comprehending enough input would naturally lead to
acquisition and, on the other side, more accepted notions nowadays that some sort of focus on
language is beneficial for learners. The idea is that learners’ attention is directed towards the
gap between their own interlanguage (that is their own current use and understanding of L2)
and a natural, native speaker-level model. There may be no actual rule formation in class. OR
the teacher may have pre-selected a language area, guide Ss to notice it then state it explicitly.

There are various ways to do this. TBL makes use of native speaker models of tasks, to which
learners then compare their own language use. Dictogloss is another procedure which
encourages learners to notice how their language differs from correct, natural native speaker-like
models. Reformulation, when a teacher takes a transcript of a learner’s spoken language or a
learner’s written text and rewrites it in more natural language, is another example of a
procedure which encourages noticing.

I first heard this analogy at a plenary with Scott Thornbury, though I have muddled the details
and told it in a much less elegant way! Still, I think it does a good job of illustrating the idea of
noticing:

A man was walking in the woods when he fell into a hole in the ground. A hiker came
along and helped him climb out of the hole. The hiker then said to the man “now go back
along the path and come back this way”. The man did as he said and this time managed to
avoid the hole in the ground.

In this story, the gap in learners’ knowledge is like the big hole in the ground. The man
represents the language learner and the hiker is the teacher. The teacher creates a path (sets a
task / activity), the learner fall into the hole (or the gap in their language knowledge), the
teacher helps them correct themselves (notice the gap / climb out of the hole). The idea is that
next time they walk down that path or do a similar task / activity, they won’t make the same
error.

Quiz: http://moodle.teachinghouse.com/mod/quiz/view.php?id=352

Match the approach to teaching language systems with the description and the example
lesson plan.
 Match the procedure to the description and the example lesson.
Procedure Description
PPP through a Learners are given an activity in which they do something
lecture with the language – e.g. plan a party, negotiate how a
certain amount of money will be spent, tell an anecdote.
The teacher notes what language area would help improve
the learners’ achievement of the task and inputs these
during a language focus stage. Ss could be exposed to a
native speaker model of the task and have their attention
drawn to salient language features. Learners then repeat
the initial activity with a new partner or do a very similar
one, hopefully integrating the new language features.
PPP through a Ss do some comprehension work with a short text. The text
situation is then read again, once or twice at normal speed and Ss are
encouraged to write as much as they can. Because of the
natural speed, learners can’t write everything – probably
just the content words.
Using their current knowledge of language, their
understanding o the text as a whole and their notes, Ss
work together to recreate the original text – adding
grammar or, in other words, “fleshing out” the meaning
with form.
The T then provides learners with a copy of the original text
which they analyze in terms of similarity / difference. the T
provides feedback to see if any discrepancies were correct
and conveyed the same meaning, conveyed the same
meaning but incorrect/inappropriate use of English or
conveyed a different meaning with correc/incorrect
language. Ss notice the gap between their current
interlanguage and the model text and absorb language.
Example lesson
Ss listen to a short text about a skiing accident which contains numerous phrasal verbs. As
they listen they are asked to answer the question “was Cassie badly injured? ”.
T checks comprehension.
The text is then read again while students write down the important words. Ss work
together to write out the text in full, adding grammar and extra lexis, on an overhead
transparency. The texts are then compared with the original. Ss display their work,
compare it with the original and code various elements of the text according to whether
they expressed a) the same meaning in the same words (underline), b) the same meaning in
different words – correct (circled), c) the same meaning in different words –incorrect
(underlined with a wiggly line) or d) different meaning (underlined with a dashed line). They
then ‘notice’ any differences and hopefully close the gap between their current
interlanguage and a more native speaker-like version.
T shows the following diagram and explains that when we have an idea about the future and
say it at the same time, we use will or ‘ll:
T highlights the contraction of will with various subjects and the use of the base
form:
T: answer the door. Susan
Ss: Susan’ll answer the door
T: We
Ss: We’ll answer the door
T explains if we have an idea about the future and then tell someone later, we use “be going
to”:
T elicits / highlights various forms of ‘be’ with different subjects.
T: have the steak. I?
Ss: I am going to have the steak.
T: Tim
Ss: Tim is going to have the steak.
T gives various scenarios and Ss decide whether will or going to would be more appropriate:
e.g. “the phone rings. You decide to answer it” or “yesterday you decided to visit your aunt

PPP through a The teacher explains a grammar rule in terms of form, use
text. and phonology. The students then practice it in a controlled
way (repetition drills, gapfills etc.) before they then, at least
theoretically incorporate it into their interlanguage and use
it freely in some sort of communicative task.
Test Teach Test Rather than the teacher explaining / eliciting rules of a
structure, the structure is highlighted and learners work out
the rules of form / use and even possibly pronunciation
themselves via a series of questions. These questions can
be more or less open ended, depending on how much
guidance the teacher thinks the learners need. This is not a
whole lesson type but instead can replace the teacher
centered clarification in the Presentation ‘P’ or the Teach ‘T’
in the procedures mentioned earlier.
Guided Ss do some sort of practice activity – either a controlled
Discovery practice which requires use of the target language OR a
freer practice activity which encourages but doesn’t
necessarily demand use of the target language. T notes
which elements of the target language are problematic for
learners and then these elements of meaning/use, form
and pronunciation are clarified with learners. Ss then do a
similar activity - controlled, freer or both – and hopefully
perform better with the target language.
next weekend”.
Ss then talk about their own plans for next weekend, next year and in 10 years time using
will and going to.
T sets up the situation. They work for a charity. Mr. Smith won the lottery last week and
he’s going to donate $100,000 to one charity. They have to prepare a presentation to
persuade Mr. Smith to give the money to their charity.
Ss do the task orally. T takes notes and decides that they need help with their use of modal
verbs and the function of agreeing / disagreeing.
T inputs some of this language using sentences actually said (inappropriately) by learners
during the activity. She drills the pronunciation and makes learners aware of the rules of
form (Any subject + modal + base form: I see what you mean. I’m not sure about that), and
issues regarding register (I disagree vs I can see where you’re coming from but…).
Ss now work with members of the other groups to decide whose charity deserves the
money. Ss use the new language and the teacher / other students give feedback on how
well the task was achieved.
The teacher shows the class photos of herself from the past. The photos show that she used
to dance ballet, she used to have blue hair, the boy she used to date, etc. The teacher asks
questions like “do I have blue hair now?” “did I dance ballet once or many times?” to
establish that the situations were true in the past but are not true now, the actions
happened more than once and the states were for an extended period. She either elicits or
provides the target structure of used to… The teacher elicits the form for the affirmative,
negative and question and drills the pronunciation.
Ss are then introduced to a reformed character, Sandra. They then manipulate the form of
various sentences e.g.
+ Sandra _____________________(smoke) but she doesn’t anymore.
- She _________________________(not eat healthily) but now she lives on fresh
vegetables.
+ She ____________________ (weigh) 250 pounds.
? - __________ Sandra __________________ (drink alcohol)? Yes, a bottle of wine
every night!
Ss then discuss the things that they used to do when they were a child.
Ss read a text about boosting brainpower in which an experiment is described which showed
that mice who had treats performed better on tests. Ss read the text and choose the best
title from a list of 4.
In pairs, Ss then work through a worksheet which asks a series of questions like:
“the mice are fed on popcorn and sweets” – who feeds the mice?
“brain power can be boosted by life’s little luxuries” – who or what does the action in this
sentence? What is the main focus of the sentence here – life’s little luxuries or brain power?
and also focuses on elements of form (be+ part participle) in the various tenses of the
passive voice. Ss are also asked to identify which syllables are stressed in the marker
sentences and what happens to the verb ‘to be’ – to elicit the idea of weak forms.
Ss then complete gaps in a text about a new range of English language exams using either
the active or passive voice (the exams are taken in December and June. Candidates must
not use dictionaries)

Task Based A text is selected which contains multiple uses of the target
Learning structure. Ss do comprehension work of the text as a
whole, therefore implicitly understanding the target
language. Students then identify examples of the structure,
or have their attention directed towards these examples.
the language is analyzed in terms of form, use and
pronunciation. Ss do controlled then freer practice using
the target language.
Noticing, e.g. The teacher sets up a situation in which use of the target
dictogloss / structure is needed. The target structure is provided (or
reconstruction elicited). The teacher and students then explore the rules of
form, use and pronunciation together before students
engage in controlled practice. They then do freer practice
activities which still require use of the target structure but
the way it is employed and the surrounding language can be
chosen by the learner him/herself.
Now scroll down for the answers:
Ss then discuss the best way to learn English out of a selection of 3. Teacher uses demo to
encourage learners in using the passive voice ‘spontaneously’.
Ss are given a text comparing the teacher’s home town with New York. The text contains
information about the cost of living, the types of entertainment, the architecture and the
culture. Students read the text and complete a gist comprehension task like “Which city
does the writer prefer?”.
The teacher then elicits example phrases from the text which contain comparatives and
records them on the board. T elicits meaning by having Ss plot prices etc. on a cline. T
elicits the rules of form, including spelling and changes for multi-syllable adjectives and
adjectives that end in –y. She also drills and highlights pronunciation on the board.
Ss are then given pairs of nouns with an adjective and they have to make true sentences.
E.g. bike car (fast) – a car is faster than a bike.
Ss are then put in pairs. They have to write sentences comparing themselves but keeping
their identities a mystery e.g. “student A’s hair is longer than student B’s”, “Student B is taller
than student A” . The sentences are then read aloud and the other students have to guess
which pair wrote the sentences.
Ss are asked to discuss zoos and whether they are in favor or against them and if it depends,
what does it depend on. Ss are then given a text about zoos in which all of the articles have
been gapped and a gap inserted before nouns which take no article (i.e. the zero article). Ss
first read the text, ignoring the gaps and do a gist task – e.g. “which of your ideas were
mentioned? Is the writer in favor of zoos or against them?”. T checks comprehension.
Ss then try to put the correct article in each gap. The T monitors and notices that students
are having trouble distinguishing between when to use the definite article and the zero
article, but seem to be ok with the indefinite article.
The T then briefly reviews the rule of the indefinite article but focuses more on the
distinction between when we use the definite article and when we use zero article in
English.
Ss are then given another text which has also had the articles taken out. They work
individually and then in pairs to try to put the articles back, bearing in mind the rules they’ve
just reviewed. T gives feedback and clears up any remaining doubts.
PPP through a lecture The teacher explains a grammar rule in terms of
form, use and phonology. The students then
practice it in a controlled way (repetition drills,
gapfills etc.) before they then, at least
theoretically incorporate it into their
interlanguage and use it freely in some sort of
communicative task.
PPP through a situation The teacher sets up a situation in which use of the
target structure is needed. The target structure is
provided (or elicited). The teacher and students
then explore the rules of form, use and
pronunciation together before students engage in
controlled practice. They then do freer practice
activities which still require use of the target
structure but the way it is employed and the
surrounding language can be chosen by the
learner him/herself.
T shows the following diagram and explains that when we have an idea about the
future and say it at the same time, we use will or ‘ll:
T highlights the contraction of will with various subjects and the use of the
base form:
T: answer the door. Susan
Ss: Susan’ll answer the door
T: We
Ss: We’ll answer the door
T explains if we have an idea about the future and then tell someone later, we use
“be going to”:
T elicits / highlights various forms of ‘be’ with different subjects.
T: have the steak. I?
Ss: I am going to have the steak.
T: Tim
Ss: Tim is going to have the steak.
T gives various scenarios and Ss decide whether will or going to would be more
appropriate: e.g. “the phone rings. You decide to answer it” or “yesterday you
decided to visit your aunt next weekend”.
Ss then talk about their own plans for next weekend, next year and in 10 years time
using will and going to.
The teacher shows the class photos of herself from the past. The photos show that
she used to dance ballet, she used to have blue hair, the boy she used to date, etc.
The teacher asks questions like “do I have blue hair now?” “did I dance ballet once or
many times?” to establish that the situations were true in the past but are not true
now, the actions happened more than once and the states were for an extended
period. She either elicits or provides the target structure of used to… The teacher
elicits the form for the affirmative, negative and question and drills the pronunciation.
Ss are then introduced to a reformed character, Sandra. They then manipulate the
form of various sentences e.g.
+ Sandra _____________________(smoke) but she doesn’t anymore.
- She _________________________(not eat healthily) but now she lives on
fresh vegetables.

PPP through a text. A text is selected which contains multiple uses of
the target structure. Ss do comprehension work
of the text as a whole, therefore implicitly
understanding the target language. Students then
identify examples of the structure, or have their
attention directed towards these examples. the
language is analyzed in terms of form, use and
pronunciation. Ss do controlled then freer
practice using the target language.
Test Teach Test Ss do some sort of practice activity – either a
controlled practice which requires use of the
target language OR a freer practice activity which
encourages but doesn’t necessarily demand use
of the target language. T notes which elements of
the target language are problematic for learners
and then these elements of meaning/use, form
and pronunciation are clarified with learners. Ss
then do a similar activity - controlled, freer or
both – and hopefully perform better with the
target language.
Guided Discovery Rather than the teacher explaining / eliciting rules
of a structure, the structure is highlighted and
learners work out the rules of form / use and even
possibly pronunciation themselves via a series of
questions. These questions can be more or less
open ended, depending on how much guidance
the teacher thinks the learners need. This is not a
+ She ____________________ (weigh) 250 pounds.
? - __________ Sandra __________________ (drink alcohol)? Yes, a bottle of
wine every night!
Ss then discuss the things that they used to do when they were a child.
Ss are given a text comparing the teacher’s home town with New York. The text
contains information about the cost of living, the types of entertainment, the
architecture and the culture. Students read the text and complete a gist
comprehension task like “Which city does the writer prefer?”.
The teacher then elicits example phrases from the text which contain comparatives
and records them on the board. T elicits meaning by having Ss plot prices etc. on a
cline. T elicits the rules of form, including spelling and changes for multi-syllable
adjectives and adjectives that end in –y. She also drills and highlights pronunciation
on the board.
Ss are then given pairs of nouns with an adjective and they have to make true
sentences. E.g. bike car (fast) – a car is faster than a bike.
Ss are then put in pairs. They have to write sentences comparing themselves but
keeping their identities a mystery e.g. “student A’s hair is longer than student B’s”,
“Student B is taller than student A” . The sentences are then read aloud and the other
students have to guess which pair wrote the sentences.
Ss are asked to discuss zoos and whether they are in favor or against them and if it
depends, what does it depend on. Ss are then given a text about zoos in which all of
the articles have been gapped and a gap inserted before nouns which take no article
(i.e. the zero article). Ss first read the text, ignoring the gaps and do a gist task – e.g.
“which of your ideas were mentioned? Is the writer in favor of zoos or against
them?”. T checks comprehension.
Ss then try to put the correct article in each gap. The T monitors and notices that
students are having trouble distinguishing between when to use the definite article
and the zero article, but seem to be ok with the indefinite article.
The T then briefly reviews the rule of the indefinite article but focuses more on the
distinction between when we use the definite article and when we use zero article in
English.
Ss are then given another text which has also had the articles taken out. They work
individually and then in pairs to try to put the articles back, bearing in mind the rules
they’ve just reviewed. T gives feedback and clears up any remaining doubts.
Ss read a text about boosting brainpower in which an experiment is described which
showed that mice who had treats performed better on tests. Ss read the text and
choose the best title from a list of 4.
In pairs, Ss then work through a worksheet which asks a series of questions like:
“the mice are fed on popcorn and sweets” – who feeds the mice?
“brain power can be boosted by life’s little luxuries” – who or what does the action in
this sentence? What is the main focus of the sentence here – life’s little luxuries or

Task Based Learning
Noticing, e.g. dictogloss /
reconstruction
whole lesson type but instead can replace the
teacher centered clarification in the Presentation
‘P’ or the Teach ‘T’ in the procedures mentioned
earlier.
Learners are given an activity in which they do
something with the language – e.g. plan a party,
negotiate how a certain amount of money will be
spent, tell an anecdote. The teacher notes what
language area would help improve the learners’
achievement of the task and inputs these during a
language focus stage. Ss could be exposed to a
native speaker model of the task and have their
attention drawn to salient language features.
Learners then repeat the initial activity with a new
partner or do a very similar one, hopefully
integrating the new language features.
Ss do some comprehension work with a short
text. The text is then read again, once or twice at
normal speed and Ss are encouraged to write as
much as they can. Because of the natural speed,
learners can’t write everything – probably just the
content words.
Using their current knowledge of language, their
understanding o the text as a whole and their
notes, Ss work together to recreate the original
text – adding grammar or, in other words,
“fleshing out” the meaning with form.
The T then provides learners with a copy of the
original text which they analyze in terms of
similarity / difference. the T provides feedback to
see if any discrepancies were correct and
conveyed the same meaning, conveyed the same
meaning but incorrect/inappropriate use of
English or conveyed a different meaning with
correc/incorrect language. Ss notice the gap
between their current interlanguage and the
model text and absorb language.
brain power?
and also focuses on elements of form (be+ part participle) in the various tenses of the
passive voice. Ss are also asked to identify which syllables are stressed in the marker
sentences and what happens to the verb ‘to be’ – to elicit the idea of weak forms.
Ss then complete gaps in a text about a new range of English language exams using
either the active or passive voice (the exams are taken in December and June.
Candidates must not use dictionaries)
Ss then discuss the best way to learn English out of a selection of 3. Teacher uses
demo to encourage learners in using the passive voice ‘spontaneously’.
T sets up the situation. They work for a charity. Mr. Smith won the lottery last week
and he’s going to donate $100,000 to one charity. They have to prepare a
presentation to persuade Mr. Smith to give the money to their charity.
Ss do the task orally. T takes notes and decides that they need help with their use of
modal verbs and the function of agreeing / disagreeing.
T inputs some of this language using sentences actually said (inappropriately) by
learners during the activity. She drills the pronunciation and makes learners aware of
the rules of form (Any subject + modal + base form: I see what you mean. I’m not
sure about that), and issues regarding register (I disagree vs I can see where you’re
coming from but…).
Ss now work with members of the other groups to decide whose charity deserves the
money. Ss use the new language and the teacher / other students give feedback on
how well the task was achieved.
Ss listen to a short text about a skiing accident which contains numerous phrasal
verbs. As they listen they are asked to answer the question “was Cassie badly
injured? ”.
T checks comprehension.
The text is then read again while students write down the important words. Ss work
together to write out the text in full, adding grammar and extra lexis, on an overhead
transparency. The texts are then compared with the original. Ss display their work,
compare it with the original and code various elements of the text according to
whether they expressed a) the same meaning in the same words (underline), b) the
same meaning in different words – correct (circled), c) the same meaning in different
words –incorrect (underlined with a wiggly line) or d) different meaning (underlined
with a dashed line). They then ‘notice’ any differences and hopefully close the gap
between their current interlanguage and a more native speaker-like version.
What principles underlie these “approaches”? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Discuss this in the Teaching Language Systems discussion forum.
Criteria for Choosing a Method for teaching language systems.

We have looked at different language focus or clarification methods. How do we decide which one to use? Our choice
might depend on some of these factors:

The Learner

 Age: A lecture or PPP mode may suit an older student, or a student whose educational background may have been
more lecture based.
 Educational Culture: students from a more traditional educational culture might likewise prefer the above, thinking
the teacher is “doing her job” more if she is ‘teaching’ in the more traditional sense.
 Learning Style: Some students are more atomistic in their view of language, some more holistic; some are more
independent and others more dependent on the teacher. For the latter, guided discovery may not be effective and
a teacher-fronted clarification stage may be more appropriate.

The Level

Clearly a test-teach-test approach won’t be effective in the first class of an absolute beginners course (though arguably it
could be soon after that). Higher level learners may have more language with which to discuss language and may be more
suited to an inductive or guided discovery approach.

The Language Item

Some language (in some contexts) is difficult in meaning though not in form. For example the present perfect for
experience. European language learners would welcome its apparent similarity to their equivalent tenses but perhaps fail
to note the rather specific type of pastness that it embodies. Some language is difficult in form though not in meaning.
E.g. verb patterns (refuse + infinitive; avoid + -verb-ing; let (someone) + base form + object). Some language (but
fortunately not too much!) is difficult in meaning and form. For example the third conditional in English is rather unwieldy
in its form (and often “mis”used by native speakers (has anyone heard “if I would’ve went”??!) and remotely hypothetical
in terms of meaning.

TASK: Choosing a Suitable Method

Which language focus methods would you use for the following language items and
in the following circumstances?
1. a present continuous/present simple contrast at elementary level
2. ‘// for spontaneous decisions for a group of formally educated students who prefer to say will
3. discourse features of a commercial email for business students
4. phrasal verbs for dating etc. Ask out / get together/ break up /, etc. young multinational summer school students
5. the future perfect; a first time clarification at mid intermediate
6. rising intonation on Yes /No questions for male Arab students who are wary of sounding effeminate.
7. a pre-exam review of all the conditionals
8. adjective order before a noun for some serious university students of literature
DISCUSSION:
Of course there is no one correct answer. Your answers may well differ from these.
Use the teaching language systems discussion forum to discuss with your colleagues your answers and the answers
suggested here:
1. A guided discovery lesson? At elementary level and a monolingual class some guidance could even be given in L1
2. PPP from an audio text.
3. PPP from a written text
4. Task based learning
5. PPP via a situation
6. PPP from an audio
7. test teach test
8. Guided discovery or dictogloss

Other ways of considering Language Focus

The majority of this unit has been focused on different ways to conceptualize and order/teach a language systems lesson.
What they have in common is thatthe teacher has chosen a piece of target language which we aim to get the learner to
use and eventually acquire.

The idea that a lesson should follow a presentation-practice-production framework has long been questioned. Even an
atomistic single-language-item focus of any sort is under scrutiny. As a result new paradigms are emerging. One of these is
OHE.

OHE

This is a paradigm proposed by Michael Lewis.

Observe-Hypothesize-Experiment (OHE)
O: students observe language. Lewis tells us that the “Observe element of the paradigm is not synonymous with exposure;
it is exposure subject to critical examination” (noticing, explicit grammar focus, etc.)
H: students hypothesize, establishing generalizations, clarifying and deepening (their) perceptions….
E: students experiment with the language forms themselves via controlled and/or freer practice.

In addition to these three steps, it stands to reason that any learner is going to be more successful at this if they receive
feedback on their experimentations before re-hypothesizing, re-observing, re-experimenting or any combination of the
above.

ARC

ARC is the paradigm proposed by Jim Scrivener. It differs from PPP and OHE in that it is not a framework for language focus.
But it does identify language focus as one of its components. What we have here are categories that can be used to
describe the things that happen in a lesson. The key difference is not the content but the fact that these steps could appear
in any order:
A. Authentic use activities: these are activities with no particular language item agenda. More informally, and from the
students’ point of view:
I can use all the language I have at my disposal. Under the A or Authentic category Scrivener mentions activities such as
communicative activities, discussions, conversations, or in skills other than speaking, reading newspapers, poems, notices,
listening to radio or TV.
R Activities that require particular restricted language use:
There is a deliberate limitation on the language that I use. I am using only part of what I know. Indeed I am being directed
to use a particular item.
Under the R or Restricted category Scrivener mentions drills, exercises, elicited dialogues etc
C Clarification and focus of language item.
As if using a magnifying glass, I zoom in and look closely at some specific pieces of
language. These pieces may be ‘new’ to me or they may be language that I already
use. (Note that this is the language focus category)
Under the C or Clarification category Scrivener mentions rules, examples, error analysis etc.

ARC is a useful way of analysing the components of a lesson. Why not take a lesson
plan of your own and see which stages fall under which of these three categories A,R or C? Remember to expect an
analysis that might very possibly read something like: R-A-C-C-A-R-C!

Conclusion

Having done the EXAM FOCUS for paper 2 tasks 2 and 3, you can see how knowledge of the principles behind these
approaches will be a considerable advantage in the exam. A list of some of the principles we can consider:
1) is language seen to be holistic or atomistic?
2) Is communication prioritized?
3) Is the language contextualized? How? Is the context ‘realistic’?
4) Who chooses the language to be focused on? The learners? The teacher?
5) Are rules seen to be important? Explicit? Implicit?
6) If so, is the approach deductive or inductive?
7) Are learners cognitively involved in the lesson?
8) Is knowledge of rules conscious or unconscious?
9) Is fluency prioritized? Accuracy? Which comes first?
10) How is other, non-target, language dealt with?

Reading

Essential Reading
Scrivener J, 1994 Learning Teaching (1st edition) Heinemann

Additional Recommended Reading

Harmer J,1998 How to teach English Longman

Lewis M, 1993 The Lexical Approach LTP
Lewis M, 1997 Implementing the Lexical Approach LTP
Lightbown P M and Spada N 2006, How Languages are Learned (3rd edition), OUP
Richards J and Rogers T 1986, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching,
CUP
Ur P, 1996 A Course in Language Teaching ,
Wilkins D, 1976 Notional Syllabuses OUP
Willis J and Willis D, 1996 Challenge and Change Heinemann ed.