Effective Team Teaching Using the Presentation, Practice,

Production Method

MARCHESSEAU Gerard

1. Introduction

The Japan Exchange and Teaching Program (JET Program) is a key feature
in English language education in Japan. With almost 4000 Assistant Language
Teachers (ALTs) participating on the JET Program as well as many non-JET
ALTs, most Japanese teachers of English (JTs) are involved in Team Teaching
(TT) with ALTs on a regular basis in primary and secondary schools. The
Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Technology (MEXT), however,
provides very little direction with regards to TT. This paper suggests a
formulaic yet flexible way in which team teaching can be conducted within
the framework of the Presentation, Practice, and Production (PPP) method. It
is based on the literature as well as personal experience using the PPP method
in a private English school setting and teaching English on the JET Program
as an ALT.
Despite the high profile of the JET Program, MEXT has in large part,
refrained from prescribing a specific model for TT. Some teachers might find
this lack of direction to be inadequate. However, given the wide variety of
factors which influence TT in practice, including the differing teaching styles
and personality of teachers, it is not appropriate to prescribe one specific
model of TT for all situations. (Smith, 1994; Hogan, 2004; Marchesseau &
Kaneshige, 2005). Gillis-Furutaka (1994) suggests that any success that the
JET Program has seen has come about from the hard work of JTs and ALTs
working in schools. Perhaps the apparent limited involvement of MEXT has
not been a detriment to the success of the JET Program, but a pre-curser to it.
The purpose of this article is not to impose a singular model for TT on all
teachers or to espouse the PPP method unilaterally, but to share a loose
framework for TT which teachers might draw upon, depending on their
individual circumstances or the purpose of a specific lesson.

−41−
 2. The PPP Method

This section outlines the PPP method, summarized by Maurer (1997).

Personal experience is further drawn upon, since I also received training in
the PPP method at the beginning of my career upon coming to Japan to work at
a private English conversation school.
Each lesson starts with a target which students may or may not have been
exposed to before. The target is usually a specific language feature or form.
Specific grammar targets are common, but other examples could be /r/ vs. /l/
pronunciation or distinguishing between different pragmatic levels of
politeness. The method also does not preclude functional targets such as
writing a cover letter or ordering food at a restaurant but it is generally
considered to be based on form (Ellis, 2003). Each lesson is broken down into
three parts, presentation, practice and production, outlined below. The
ultimate goal of the lesson is for students to learn the target to the point where
they can use it in communication. Generally, the activities move from being
more teacher-controlled and drill-focused, to being more students controlled
and communicative, as summarized by Takashima (2005), in figure 1.

Figure 1. The flow from form-focus to meaning focus in PPP and TBLT

2.1 Presentation
In the presentation, the goal is to present and teach the target. This is
when the JT may want to provide explicit instruction about the rules of the
target using Japanese (L1). For example, the teacher may want to explain how
the expression “going to” can be combined with a verb to express future intent.
In large part, the presentation will be teacher-centered and L1 may be used.

−42−
There is, however, also room for communicative use of the language in the
presentation. Rather than just beginning the lesson by addressing the class in
Japanese with explicit instruction, teachers can model the language in some
form of meaningful context and then try to elicit the target back from the
students. For example, the JT and ALT might have a conversation about their
weekend plans, as indicated below:
JT: So, Gerry-sensei, what are you going to do this weekend?
ALT: Oh, actually I’m going to go hiking on Mt. Tsurugi.
JT: Wonderful! Mt. Tsurugi is very beautiful.
ALT: What are you going to do, Mitani-sensei?
The JT might ask students if they could understand the content and then try to
elicit the actual form from the students. By modeling the target in this way,
students might better understand the connection between form and meaning
when the teacher subsequently explains the grammar.

2.2 Practice
Here, students are given time to practice the target form in a controlled
setting. The types of drills and exercises found in textbooks are often suitable
at this stage. What distinguishes a practice activity or exercise from
meaningful interaction is that the language is controlled, being dictated by the
material or the teacher, rather than coming from the students to express their
own information. There is a pre-determined answer that the student tries to
reach. The amount of teacher control may vary. Repetition practice is a type of
practice activity with a high level of teacher control. Pair work or group work
obviously entails less teacher control, but the important element is that
students are aiming at producing the correct answer. Information gap
activities also represent practice activities if the information is not related to
the real world and if the output is convergent to being a pre-determined,
correct answer. The common strategy is for teachers to arrange the practice
activities from tightly controlled towards more student centered activities in
preparation for the production stage when students will be using the language
in an uncontrolled setting.

2.3 Production
In the production activity, we hope that students will show a command of
the new target in the context of real communication with their peers, and/or

−43−
teacher. Essentially, a production activity should emulate real-world language
use in some way. An ideal activity would be a task, in which students
communicate meaningful information, drawing on their own linguistic
resources to reach a pre-determined goal. For example, if the target of the
lesson is ‘ordering food at a restaurant’, a roll-play activity which emulates
the real experience of going to a restaurant could be conducted. To make the
activity as realistic as possible, teachers could download real menus from the
internet and provide authentic material to recreate a restaurant environment in
the classroom. Other examples of tasks might be communicative games where
the focus is on using the language to reach a communicative goal, rather than
just winning the game or getting a point. For a more complete review of tasks
and task-based language teaching, see Ellis (2003), Nunan (2004), and
Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011). There is also considerable research in
Japanese, including Takashima (2000; 2005).
A production activity does not have to conform to a definition of “task”. In
the real world language is used to communicate information, whether factual,
or personal feelings or some other type of message. Any activity where the
focus is on the information or message (meaning), rather than the grammatical
or linguistic items (form) is appropriate. Other ways of achieving this would
be through Content-Based Instruction (CBI), (Stryker & Leaver 1997) or
Content and Language Integrated Learning (Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008;
Dale & Tanner, 2012). These references provide a good starting point for
further research into those areas.

2.4 Caveat of the PPP Method

It is not argued that a PPP lesson represents the best method. I do not wish
to advocate the method per se, but to present it as a possible framework to
facilitate smooth TT. Indeed, there are many criticisms of the method. Over
the last thirty years, as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) developed,
strong-form CLT advocates suggested that the PPP method is inherently
flawed since it is based on a synthetic approach in which language is broken
down into structural components. Krashen (1982) and Willis (1996) suggest
that this is not how languages are learned in the real world. Essentially, those
who advocate a strong form of CLT argue that the PPP method is not
communicative enough.
To be certain, the PPP method reflects a weak form of CLT, with the final P,

−44−
the production activity, being the truly communicative part of the lesson. It
can be seen as a compromise between CLT and traditional approaches. Since it
starts with a linguistic target, it is easy to see how it can be used with
textbooks or incorporated into a traditional syllabus, which presents language
in bite-sized chunks, providing our targets. There is also ample space for
textbook or traditional drills within the practice section. Much of the appeal
of the PPP method lies in the compromising nature of it. It can be a quick way
to make a traditional curriculum more communicative. As others have pointed
out, however, it is also important for teachers to draw from a variety of
methods and approaches, rather than being confined to one or another
formulaic method (Criado, 2013).

3. Why Does the PPP Framework Fit Well for TT?

3.1 Adaptability to traditional textbooks

ALTs often play games in class, which may be designed to review the
textbook material and bring the language to life a bit, but are often only
loosely related to what the JT is doing in class. Many JTs have trouble
incorporating the ALT into regular lessons (Wada & Cuminos, 1994). This is a
problem because many schools have a permanent ALT position and if teachers
are not comfortable using the ALT in their regular lessons, ALTs will be
underutilized. This situation has been well-observed by the author and noted
in the literature as well (Ohtani 2010).
PPP lessons function very well with a textbook while adding an additional
communicative component to the lesson. The foundation of a textbook is a
predetermined set of forms (grammar, vocabulary and other items) which is
presented in sequence. The targets for PPP lessons derive directly from the
form in the textbook. Moreover, textbooks often provide explanation, which
teachers can draw on in the presentation, and exercises which can be used as
practice activities. Teachers might then develop a production activity or task
to augment textbook learning.

3.2 Roles of JTs and ALTs are easily defined and intuitive
Knowledge of L1 (Japanese) is beneficial when presenting or teaching the
rules of the language and ensuring that students understand. JTs are trained to
teach the mechanics of the language and are obviously better equipped to

−45−
communicate using L1, therefore it is natural that the Japanese teacher play
the main role in the presentation. The ALT’s role is also important, however,
in modeling the language. The target is often modeled at the beginning of the
lesson, and here the two teachers can work together, engaging in a
conversation. In JT-taught classes, students rarely have the opportunity to see
their teacher actually using English to perform an authentic communicative
function. By using English for communication in this way, JTs also present
themselves as a role-model for students.
In the practice activities, JTs are also likely to play the main role, since L1
may be useful for more teacher centered activities, and the textbook (which is
largely in Japanese) is also likely to be used in this section. The ALT can
support students and their role is likely to become more important as the
activities become more student-centered. In the production activity, the ALT
role becomes more important since the focus is on communication using the
target language. The JT can also play an important role by modeling the
production activity with the ALT, making sure the students understand the
instructions, and participating in the activity with the students. Competent
ALTs can probably be left to plan a production activity on their own.
Table 1 summarizes the various roles that JTs and ALTs might take in the
various stages of a PPP lesson.

3.3 PPP lessons are practical and easy to prepare

Because the roles are relatively easy to define, preparation can be divided
along the same lines if both teachers understand the framework. At this point
personal experience will be drawn upon to provide an example of what
planning a PPP lesson might look like. As an ALT from 1998 through 2001, I
worked with many JTs at three schools. Generally, each JT had their own idea
of what TT should look like. Some JTs preferred to play a very dominant role
while others preferred a passive role. As an ALT, the JTs which were the most
satisfying to work with strived for a roughly equal role. The planning process
with one such JT who will be referred to as Mitani-sensei is described below.
The day before class Mitani-sensei and I would meet briefly and our
conversation would be something like this:
Mitani-sensei: “Gerry-sensei, we have a class tomorrow. We’re on page 23.”
Gerard: “Page 23. That’s using ‘going to’ to describe the future, right?”
Mitani-sensei: “Yes, so we should talk about our weekend plans at first?”

−46−
 Gerard: “Good idea. Then you can use parts of our conversation to explain
the grammar. Students will probably need some practice with it.”
Mitani-sensei: “Yes. There are some exercises in the book. Can you plan a
task or game for them to talk about their weekend or something.”
Gerard: “No problem. I have some ideas. So I’ll see you tomorrow.”
Mitani-sensei: “Great. See you.”

Table 1: Roles for JTs and ALTs, following the PPP framework
Role of JT Role of ALT
Present atio n x Use the t arg et in a natural x Use the t a rget in a natural
conversatio n with ALT conversation with JT
x See if stud ents could understand x Work as an assistan t,
the conten t (b y asking content repeating the conversation if
questions in Japanese or necessary
English ). Repeat i f n ecessary. x The ALT is avail able to
x See i f stu dents coul d hear the provide fu rther exa mples of
target the target i n use
x Explain the target using x Assi st the teacher, providing
me t a l a n g u a g e , p ro b a b l y b u t n o t e x a mp l e s o f t h e t a rg e t i n u s e
necessaril y using Japa nese (L1 ) if nece ssa ry
Practice x T h e J T ma y p l a y t h e d o mi n a n t x Assist stud ents individually
role since there wil l be a mo re x Working with student s
teache r-cen tered focu s on for m one-on -one, using English to
a n d L 1 ma y b e u s e f u l engage stu dents in authentic
x Prepa re practice acti vities or interact ion whil e the y
drill s to p r actice the t arg et co mp lete le ss authenti c drill s
x Tex t b o o k e x e r c i s e s o f t e n p r o v i d e o r p ra c t i c e a c t i v i t i e s
suitable p ractice activi ties.
x Provide any explan ation or
additional support as required

−47−
Production x Assi st wi th facilit ating the x The ALT ma y pl ay the
co mmunic a tive activity, do minant role sin ce th e fo cus
providing student support or will be on co mmun ication
a dd i t i on a l i nst r u c t i on s, e t c . using the t a rg e t language
x Model the activit y tog ether wi th (English).
the ALT (instead of provid ing x Prepa re a t ask, conten t-ba sed
excessive i nstru ction) a c t i v i t y o r s o me t yp e o f g a me
x JT ma y a l so choo se to work that requi res co mmu n ication
directl y wi th the stud ents a s a in English
participant in the activ ity x R e me mb e r t h a t mo d e l i n g i s
often better than providing
lengthy instruction

We can see that the lesson which Mitani-sensei and Gerard discussed
follows the PPP pattern very closely. Before we begin planning, we establish a
target directly from the textbook. At the beginning of the lesson, we model the
target using casual and authentic, but focused dialogue. The JT then goes on
to explain the target as part of the presentation. The textbook exercises
provide students with practice using the target. Additional practice activities
may be provided if necessary, often at the discretion of the JT. The production
activity is then primarily the ALT’s responsibility.
After having a short chat to develop a plan, the JT and ALT can prepare
individually on their own time. JTs are very busy and ALTs are also likely to
be working with several JTs over the course of a day or week so it is very
difficult to secure time to plan together. If both teachers have a similar
framework in mind, it can make planning much easier. I had had experience
with the PPP method before becoming an ALT. Whether or not Mitani-sensei
had directly studied PPP is unclear, but the method has been fairly ubiquitous
over the past 30 years (Craido, 2013) and is also intuitive for the experienced
teacher who has to balance form and textbooks with communicative goals.
This pattern of planning was typical with this specific JT and it was very
efficient and effective. What is necessary is that both teachers have an
understanding of the framework and a certain degree of trust. Providing
additional training for both ALTs and JTs may be necessary to bridge any gaps
in this respect.

−48−
 4. Conclusion

The PPP method presents JTs and ALTs with a framework which can help
facilitate efficient and effective TT. While it is not argued to be a best method
which all teachers should use all of the time, it can be an important tool or
reference point for TT (as well as other circumstances). The PPP method is
compatible with textbook-based learning. The targets, as well as many of the
practice activities can be drawn directly from the textbooks. Moreover, it
brings a communicative component into English classes which can be
excessively form-focused, otherwise. The language comes to life in the
production activity as students communicate using the newly-acquired form.
Most importantly for our purposes, the PPP method can be an effective
solution to the dilemma of TT. Lessons are quick and easy to plan, and both
teachers have important and complimentary roles in planning and delivering
the lesson. Having an understanding of the PPP method can go a long way
toward making the awkward situation of having to team teach with a partner,
much easier and rewarding for all of those involved.

References

Craido, R. (2013). A critical review of the presentation-practice-production

Model (PPP) in foreign language teaching. In R. Monroy (Ed.),
Homenage a Francisco Gutierrez Diez [A homage to Francisco Gutierrez
Diez]. (pp.97-115). Murcia: Edit.um.
Dale, L. and Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities: a resource for subject and
language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gillis-Furutaka, A. (1994). Pedagogical preparations for JET Program
teachers. In M. Wada and A. Cuminos (Eds.) Studies in team teaching.
(pp.29-41). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Hogan, J. (2004). Are concerns for the addition of English warranted? The
Language Teacher, 28 (2), 3-8.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning.
London: Pergamon Press Ltd.

−49−
Larson-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in
language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maurer, J.K. (1997). Presentation, Practice, and Production in the EFL Class.
The Language Teacher Online, Retreived October 10, 2009 from:
http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/sep/maurer.html
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content
and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education.
Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ohtani, C. (2010). Problems in the assistant language teacher system and
English activities at Japanese public elementary schools. Educational
Perspectives, 43, 38-45.
Smith, R.C. (1994). Contents and activities in team teaching: Lessons from
observations. In M. Wada and A. Cuminos (Eds.) Studies in team
teaching. (pp.72-89). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Stryker, S.B. and Leaver, B.L. (Eds.) (1997). Content-based instruction in
foreign language education. Washington DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Takahashi, H. (2000). Eigo no tasuku katsudo to bunpo shido [English task
activities and form-focused instruction]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Takahashi, H. (2005). Eigo no tasuku katsudo to tasuku [English task
activities and tasks]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Wada, M. and Cuminos, A. (Eds.) Studies in team teaching. Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Addison
Wesley Longman.

−50−