Call Material

1. link picture
    download
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/pj573871uxbr82d/PICTURE_3.jpg
    download
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/fsyf78u4hu0d36v/PICTURE_2.jpg
    download
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/fsyf78u4hu0d36v/PICTURE_2.jpg

2. link audacity
    download
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/wg9dse4l02xcknx/audacity_wiran.wav

3. link video editor
    download
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/j6xgvyygs7a162b/join_20161223065417.avi
  
Question about the VIDEO EDITOR

1. what the strategies that teacher give for teach the students?
   a. show the picture and put the name of pictures
   b. give the pictures
   c. give the informations
   d. use PPP (presentiation, practice, and production)

2. what the picture that teacher show to students?
  a. animals, people and fuites
  b. animals
  c. no think
  d. some picture


4. link movie maker
    download
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/nyla8hltfuztb6x/MOVIEMAKER_WIRAN.wmv
    
 
ARTICLE :
   A Critical Look at the Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) Approach
                      Challenges and Promises for ELT

                                        Parviz Maftoon
                 Department of English, Science and Research Branch,
                      Islamic Azad University, Hesarak, Tehran, Iran
  Postal Code: 1477893855, P.O.Box 14515 – 755, Tel. +98 311-6692696
                                   pmaftoon@srbiau.ac.ir

                                        Saeid Najafi Sarem
                 Department of English, Science and Research Branch,
                        Islamic Azad University, Hesarak, Tehran, Iran
  Postal Code: 1477893855, P.O.Box 14515 – 755, Tel. +98 311-6692696
                                   s_najafisarem@yahoo.com

Abstract
          English language teaching has left behind many ups and downs until the introduction of
CLT and TBLT methodologies in recent years. Much attempt has been made both by researchers
and language instructors to make use of the most efficient teaching practices aimed at enhancing
language production and affecting learning outcomes in a positive way. In the same direction,
during 1950s an approach emerged in the United Kingdom based on behaviorist teaching practices
known as PPP, which soon popularized the field of language teaching and employed by many
professional schools throughout the world. However, due to ignoring the communication as a main
goal of language learning, this approach came under serious attacks and criticisms by various
scholars from 1990s onwards. The present paper is an attempt to critically look at this issue from
several perspectives: First, in order to know the three Ps approach, this article will present its main
characteristics and principles. Second, it will elaborate on the main challenges and criticisms posed
against this approach by various scholars. Finally, the advantages of applying the three Ps will be
discussed as a useful teaching technique rather than an approach or method. Also, the implications
will be pointed out both for language teachers and learners.
Keywords: The PPP, Criticisms and Problems, Advantages and Implications

1. Introduction
           Before 1990s, the "Three Ps" approach to language teaching was referred to by some
scholars as the most common modern methodology employed by professional schools around the
world. It is a strong feature of the renowned CELTA certification and other TEFL qualifications
offered especially in the United Kingdom (Ludescher). According to Harmer (2001, p. 86) “a
variation on Audiolingualism in British-based teaching and elsewhere is the procedure most often
referred to as PPP which stands for presentation, practice, production,”. It follows the premise that
knowledge becomes skill through successive practice and that language is learned in small chunks
leading to the whole. This approach views accuracy as a precursor to fluency. As Harmer (2001)
maintains PPP has been recommended to trainee teachers as a useful teaching procedure from the
1960s onwards.
          PPP is a three-part teaching paradigm: Presentation, Practice and Production; based on
behaviorist theory which states that learning a language is just like learning any other skill. The
high degree of teacher control which characterizes the first and second stages of this approach
lessens as the class proceeds, allowing the learner to gradually move away from the teacher’s
support towards more automatic production and understanding. (Ur, 1996, p. 19)
         PPP uses a classic deductive approach with grammar being explicitly introduced in the
Presentation stage, the first part of the class, by the teacher. The Target Language (TL) for the day
is chosen by the teacher from a syllabus of discrete language segments. Material presented to the
students is manipulated, or finely-tuned, to emphasize the TL and remove reference to other
BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience
Volume 3, Issue 4, "Brain and Language", December 2012, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068 - 0473 (print)
32
           language items which have yet to be presented. This is to allow students to concentrate on the TL
without further distractions. (Read 1985, p. 17, cited in Carless, 2009, p. 51)
According to Richards and Renandya (2002), many traditional approaches to language
teaching are based on a focus on grammatical form and a cycle of activities that involves
presentation of new language item, practice of the item under controlled conditions, and a
production phase in which the learners try out the form in a more communicative context. This has
been referred to as the P.P.P. approach and it forms the basis of such traditional methods of teaching
as Audiolingualism and the Structural-Situational approach.
As Willis and Willis (1996, cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) state a lesson plan based on
PPP should have three phases as follows:
          Presentation stage: The teacher begins the lesson by setting up a situation, either eliciting or
modeling some language that the situation calls for. Presentation may consist of model
sentences, short dialogues illustrating target items, either read from the textbook, heard on
the tape or acted out by the teacher.
Practice stage: Students practice the new language in a controlled way. They drill sentences
or dialogues by repeating after the teacher or the tape, in chorus and individually, until they
can say them correctly. Other practice activities are matching parts of sentences, completing
sentences or dialogues and asking and answering questions using the target language.
Production stage: Students are encouraged to use the new language in a freer way, either for
their own purposes and meanings or in a similar context introduced by the teacher. It can be
a role play, a simulation activity or a communication task.
Byrne (1986) also notes that the sequence does not have to be followed rigidly, and that
depending on the level of the students, their needs and the teaching materials being used, it would
also be possible to move from production to presentation to practice.
           PPP, in Thornbury’s (1999) view, has a logic that is appealing to teachers and learners in
that it reflects a notion of practice makes perfect, common in many skills; it allows the teacher to
control the content and pace of the lesson; and as Skehan (2003) remarks, it provides a clear teacher
role, in accordance with power relations often found in classrooms.
Being familiar with the main features and principles of this approach, in the following
section, we will review a number of criticisms which have been mentioned in the literature by
various scholars. Finally, in the last part of this paper the researcher tries to focus on the advantages
associated with PPP and introduce it as a good teaching technique to be utilized by language
instructors in many situations.
          2. Problems with PPP
Knowing the features and principles of PPP, it should be mentioned that in spite of its
popularity for some time in the field of language teaching, from the 1990s onwards, this approach
came under sustained attack from academics. Some of the major problems associated with it are
mentioned here.
Based on Ellis (2003), PPP views language as a series of products that can be acquired
sequentially as accumulated entities. However, SLA research has shown that learners do not acquire
a language in this way. Rather they construct a series of systems, known as interlanguages, which
are gradually grammaticized and restructured as learners incorporate new features. Furthermore,
research on developmental sequences has shown that learners pass through a series of transitional
stages in acquiring a specific grammatical feature such as negatives, often taking months or even
years before they arrive at the target form of the rule. In other words, L2 acquisition is a process
that is incompatible with teaching seen as the presentation and practice of a series of products.
PPP is seen as lacking a firm basis in second language acquisition (SLA) theory; being too
linear and behaviorist in nature, so failing to account for learners’ stages of developmental readiness
(Ellis, 2003); and is thus unlikely to lead to the successful acquisition of taught forms (Skehan,
1996).
P. Maftoon, J. Hamidi, S. N. Sarem - The Effects of CALL on Vocabulary Learning: A Case of Iranian Intermediate EFL
Learners
33

         Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 246) mention that there are practical problems with PPP as
well. Clearly, the production stage calls for grammar tasks, that is, tasks that will elicit the feature
that is the target of the lesson. However, it is not easy to design tasks that require learners to use a
targeted structure, as learners can always fall back on their strategic competence to by-pass it.
The Practice stage of the PPP paradigm in particular has attracted a lot of criticism. To
summarize the vast amount that has been written, it is seen to be time-consuming (Ellis 1988),
under tight control from the teacher and therefore rigid (Willis, 1990, p. 151), inflexible and lacking
the ability to adapt to the ever-changing classroom situation (Scrivener, 1996, p.80), and of no use
to students’ learning processes (Lewis, 1993, p.151). Willis stresses that it is conformity, not
communication, being practiced. Also he explains that teaching grammar as discrete items, with
fixed rules will serve only to confuse students once they encounter more complex grammar which
will not fit the prototype they have been shown (Willis, 1990, p. 4).
Skehan (1996) points out that such a sequence does not reflect principles of second language
acquisition:
        The underlying theory for a PPP approach has now been discredited. The
belief that a precise focus on a particular form leads to learning and
automatization (that learners will learn what is taught in the order in which it
is taught) no longer carries much credibility in linguistics or psychology.
(Skehan, 1996, p. 18).
In other words, as Skehan (1996) contends, language learning does not occur in a linear
fashion influenced directly by the instruction that takes place. Instead, it is a multifaceted complex
process in which many factors including learners’ cognitive and affective characteristics are
influentional.
          It also seems to assume that, in this teaching method, students learn “in straight lines” that is
starting from no knowledge, through highly restricted sentence-based utterances and onto
immediate production. Yet human learning probably is not like that; it is more random, more
complicated, and full of interlocking variables and systems. (Woodward, 1993, p. 3, cited in
Harmer, 2001, p. 82).
Lewis (1993) suggested that PPP was inadequate because it reflected neither the nature of
language nor the nature of learning. This criticism seems to be quite logical in that the learners are
required to merely mimic a model in a fixed linear order without paying attention to the inherent
complexities of the language itself as well the teaching/learning process. Scrivener (1996) even
wrote that it is fundamentally disabling, not enabling. Later, however, Scrivener advanced what is
perhaps the most worrying aspect of PPP, the fact that it:
Only describes one kind of lesson; it is inadequate as a general proposal
concerning approaches to language in the classroom. It entirely fails to
describe the many ways in which teachers can work when, for example,
using course books, or when adopting a task-based approach. (p. 79)
As was noted, practice comprises one of the basic principles of this approach which follows
presentation. However, based on Lightbown (1985), SLA research demonstrates that practice does
not necessarily lead to perfection. This criticism seems to be quite reasonable in that by having
students merely practice a language structure, one cannot expect them to learn and internalize that
language structure. Rather, students need to be provided with feedback by their teachers in order to
diagnose the problematic areas to work more and to identify their strength in order to build up their
later practices on its basis.
         Another problem associated with this approach, according to Wong and Van Patten (2003)
is that it relies heavily on the use of decontextualized and meaningless drills. A set of structural
patterns in forms of language chunks are presented to the learners as models and learners have to
produce them through pattern practice and repetition.
Finally, according to Harmer (2001) it is teacher-centered and fits uneasily with more
humanistic learner-centered frameworks. According to O’Hara (2003, cited Zhang & Atkin, 2010)
BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience
Volume 3, Issue 4, "Brain and Language", December 2012, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068 - 0473 (print)
34
          in humanistic education the goal of education is the facilitation of change and learning. Learning
how to learn is more important than being taught something from the “superior” vantage point of a
teacher who unilaterally decides what shall be taught. Brown (2007) remarks that, in humanistic
learner-centered methodologies, teachers as facilitators must provide the nurturing context for
learners to construct their meanings in interaction with others. These principles are clearly in
contrast with the main premises of the PPP approach in which teachers are the authority and the
model while the learners are considered as merely the passive recipients and practitioners of readymade
plans.
         Due to these criticisms and problems mentioned above, as Richards and Renandya (2002)
maintain, this approach was gradually replaced in the 1980s by teaching methods which focused on
communication (rather than grammar) as the key dimension of learning and teaching. Early models
of Communicative Language Teaching used functional units of organization and practice to replace
grammatical ones; more recently, however, the unit of task has been proposed as an alternative to
other units of presentation or practice.
These shifts of focus also had a significant influence on language syllabi. After the 1970s,
grammatical syllabuses were superseded by communicative ones based on functions or tasks;
grammar-based methodologies such as presentation-practice-production (PPP) lesson format
underlying the Situational Approach gave way to function-and skill-based teaching syllabi; and
accuracy activities such as drills and grammar practice were replaced by fluency activities based on
interactive-small group work. (Richards & Renandya, 2002).

         3. Concluding Remarks
                       As was discussed through this paper the PPP popularized as an approach or teaching model
during 1950s and1960s underlying such teaching methodologies as grammar-translation,
audiolingual and situational teaching method. The main purpose behind this method was to raise
language learners capable of producing grammatical language chunks through excessive pattern
practice and repetition drills. With communication coming to be noticed as the major goal of
language learning, a great number of criticisms were posed against this approach.
However, like any other teaching methodology, certain advantages can be sought within this
method which may recommend the three Ps approach as a good choice to be utilized in certain
circumstances. This approach, based on Richards and Rodgers (2001) solve many of the problems
beginning teachers have to struggle with, because many of the basic decisions about what to teach
and how to teach it have already been made for them. The PPP prescriptions of present, practice,
and produce “offers to the novice teacher the reassurance of a detailed set of sequential steps to
follow in the classroom” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 246).
Harmer (1998) in his article, Default settings: What models do for trainees, mentions that
novice teachers and trainees, need clear models, just as computer users rely, initially, on default
settings. He believes that default settings are a good metaphor for the role of the trainer in preservice
training where trainees are offered a clear model or models to hang onto and from which
they can develop and grow. The default setting that has most commonly been applied to pre-service
training is, of course, PPP (Harmer, 1998).
Based on Carless (2009) low achieving students probably learn better through traditional
methods, such as P-P-P. The PPP, based on the used terminology throughout the whole article, has
been referred to in the literature mostly as an approach or teaching method; however, what seems to
be the reality is that it can be utilized as a useful technique with a variety of teaching methodologies
from the audiolingual to the most common types of communicative approaches. For instance,
regardless of the method used it can be utilized as a helpful technique with beginning learners and
in teaching pronunciation. In terms of explaining grammar, this technique is clear-cut and
condensed, through which the main points can be taught easily. Students are normally weak in
grammar so we need to use P-P-P to help them improve their grammatical accuracy.
P. Maftoon, J. Hamidi, S. N. Sarem - The Effects of CALL on Vocabulary Learning: A Case of Iranian Intermediate EFL
Learners
35
          According to Lindsay and Knight (2006) even many CLT classrooms used a PPP model of
teaching, but the original model has been developed and modified since it was first introduced and
no longer represents CLT as the only teaching model. Evans (2008) agreed that “PPP has evolved
over the years, cherry picking the more attractive elements of other approaches, and incorporating
them into its basic format” (p. 22). Swan (2005) defends P-P-P as a useful routine for presenting
and practicing structural features under semi-controlled conditions.
         In spite of the emphasis on meaning and on real world communication rather than grammar
and hence the emergence of communicative approaches and most recently the task-based language
teaching, to our surprise, some scholars move back to old PPP practices and see it as advantageous
and superior. Eric, an authoritative writer on TBLT, remarks:
Task-based teaching is complex for teachers to get their heads round and
also complex to implement. Even if you are an informed and committed
devotee it would still be difficult to implement. It is easy to get your head
around P-P-P because the psycholinguistic theory (if there is such a thing)
is simple: practice makes perfect. And you have the immense advantage
that you can teach a P-P-P approach simply by following the textbook. A
big advantage of a P-P-P approach is that it denies differences between
learners; it licenses you to downplay those differences. In contrast, for
TBLT you have to get your head round a theory that has not yet been fully
articulated. A further challenge for a task-based approach is that it forces
you to confront the way learners are at different levels and you need to
have a methodology that allows you to respond to diversity in your
classroom. So a task-based approach forces a teacher to confront difficult
problems that are currently not solvable. (Cited in Carless, 2009, p. 59)
Moreover Gladys (Cited in Carless, 2009, p. 61) commented as follows:
Teachers dare not take the risk of bringing new things into the
classroom, the risk of getting worse results. They stick to the methods
that have been used in the past, whatever results have been achieved
they dare not take the risk unless you can show them that TBLT works.
         To conclude this paper, most of the articles available in the literature have dealt with the
problems and deficiencies of PPP as an old approach leading to the old methods of GTM and
Audiolingualism. However, what is true is that PPP can be regarded as a useful technique utilized
even in communicative approaches and bearing many advantages as were discussed in the
aforementioned sentences.

          References
[1] Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. (5th,
[2] ed.).White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
[3] Byrne, D. (1986). Teaching oral English. Harlow: Longman.
[4] Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P Debate: Voices from Hong Kong.
             Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66.
[5] Ellis, R. (1988). The role of practice in classroom learning. AILA Review, 5, 20-39.
[6] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
            Press.
[7] Evans, D. (2008). Review of PPP. Retrieved May 2, 2012 from
             www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/evanssla.pdf.
[8] Harmer, J. (1998). Default settings: What models do for trainees. Paper presented at the
             Proceedings of the 11th Annual EA Education Conference. Melbourne: Melbourne
             Exhibition Centre.
[9] Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Pearson
             Education Limited.
             BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience
             Volume 3, Issue 4, "Brain and Language", December 2012, ISSN 2067-3957 (online),
             ISSN 2068 - 0473 (print)
36
[10] Lewis, M. (1993) The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove:
             Language Teaching Publications.
[11] Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and
             classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173-89.
[12] Lindsay, C., & Knight, P. (2006). Learning and teaching English. Oxford: Oxford
             University Press.
[13] Penny, U. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge:
             Cambridge University Press.
[14] Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge:
             Cambridge University Press.
[15] Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
             London: Cambridge University Press.
[16] Scrivener, J. (1996). ARC: A descriptive model for classroom work on language. In J.
            Willis, & D. Willis, (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 79-92). Oxford:
             Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
[17] Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J.
             Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language
[18] teaching (pp. 17–30). Oxford: Heinemann.
[19] Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.
[20] Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction.
[21] Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401.
[22] Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Longman.
[23] Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London:
               Collins COBUILD.
[24] Wong, H., & Van Patten, B. (2003). The best English: A claim for the superiority of
               received standard English. Society for Pure English, 39, 603-21.
[25] Zhang, L., & Atkin, C. (2010). Conceptualizing humanistic competence in the language
               classroom by TJP - A Chinese case. International Education Studies, 3(4), 121-127.
               doi:10.1177/088840649401700203.



explanation       :
     
TITLE             : “PPP” Means Presentation, Practice, and Production.

        “Presentation” is where the target language, the language to be taught to the students, is “presented” to the students.
In this stage the teacher elicits language from the students with cues, to see what they already know (often you’ll find some of the students know a lot of– even all—of the target vocabulary). If no one knows any of the words for this topic, then the teacher will provide some vocabulary, but usually a good portion of the target phrases can be obtained from the students.
Now, why do we do this? Eliciting and cueing the students makes the topic (and your class) more relevant to the students.  After all, they gave you the material they are going to practice and learn.  That’s relevant to them and when things feel relevant, students are more motivated. (Yet another topic for another post!)
       The teacher will put that lesson’s target language up on the marker board. This might take different structures, perhaps as grammar, in charts or written in dialogs.
The presentation stage of a lesson features more “teacher talk” than the other stages of the lesson.   Teachers probably should budget as much as 20-40% of the total lesson time for this stage.
That said, less teacher talk–in any part of the lesson–is better. Our goal is to have the students talk, not the teacher. You already have plenty of practice speaking and they don’t. So don’t hog the lesson – that’s the classic symptom of a poor language teacher.
       Next comes the “Practice” stage of the lesson. The students practice the target language in one to three activities. These progress from very structured—providing little possibility for error–to less-structured as the students master the material.
These practice activities should include as much “student talk” as possible and not focus on written activities, although written activities can sometimes provide a structure for the verbal practices.
Practice activities should have the “student talk time” range from 60-80% of the time. Teacher talk time should be as minimal as possible. The practice portion of the total lesson may take 30-50% of the total lesson time.
      The third stage, “Production”, is when students take the target language and use it in conversations they ideally create and structure. They now can talk about themselves or their daily lives or situations using the language they have just learned.
The production stage of the lesson involves “student talk” as much as 90% of the time – and this component of the lesson can/should take as much as 20-30% of the total lesson time.
As you can see, the general structure of a PPP lesson is flexible. An important feature is the progression from controlled and structured speech to less-controlled and more freely used and created speech.
       Another important feature of PPP, and other methods, is the reduction of teacher talk time and the corresponding increase in student talk time as you move through the lesson.
As mentioned earlier, one of the most common errors untrained teachers make is that they talk too much. Let your students do the talking and watch how quickly they learn.