ppp vs. tbl
Re: Tasks | Greg Birch | October 31st, 2001
To those interested in TBL,
Thought I would add my two cents worth; especially, the distinction between PPP and TBL. I mention this because I, too, saw a clear distinction between PPP and TBL until I heard Dr Rod Ellis speak about his version of task, or 'focus(s)ed communicative tasks.' For Ellis, it comes in the final stage of PPP. The following is taken from his handout.
A focussed communicative task is a task that is intended to elicit the use of some specific linguistic feature(s) either through design of the task or by the use of methodological procedures that focus attention on specific form(s) in the implementation of the task.
He goes on to mention that the criteria for tasks in general are:
1. That there must be a primary focus on meaning.
2. The learners choose the linguistic and non-linguistic resources needed to complete the task.
3. A clearly defined outcome.
It seems to me that the second criterion contradicts his definition somewhat. For Ellis, most of his work concerns CR activities and tasks meant to notice and/or elicit some linguistic feature. (It is also important to note that all his tasks contained contrived examples meant to illustrate a grammatical feature. He scoffed at the idea of authentic material and suggested I read a paper by Cook in the latest edition of Applied Linguistics) I said I was quite confused at first, until he mentioned that it was not appropriate for beginners, young learners and experiential learners. OK, most of my students.
I think we have to be very careful when using the word task, as it is used to mean so many different things and for different purposes.
And to pick up on something Simon wrote, I, too, tend to use cooperative tasks as I find the competitive tasks to be extremely challenging for my 2nd year high school students in Japan. I would not rule it out and it definitely has a place in the classroom but much more care must be taken when implementing a competitive tasks as opposed to a cooperative one.
Greg Birch
Japan
Re: Tasks | Jerry Talandis Jr. | October 31st, 2001
Greg,
I find your mention of Ellis' response to the use of authentic material interesting. He "scoffs" at the idea that contrived examples are bad, and that using authentic material is not appropriate for beginners.
From the reading I've done so far for the FND and MET modules, the idea of using authentic materials has been given favorable treatment (see some of the articles in Willis & Willis' "Challenge and Change in Language Learning," for example). I've been really influenced towards this position, but now I'm taking a second look. I can see both points. It's fascinating to me how one person can say this, another can say the opposite, and they both sound good to me! In the end, I have to decide myself, based on my own experience and values.
Jerry
More on PPP vs. TBL | Pinkie | October 31st, 2001
Been following this fascinating debate on PPP vs. TBL; it's very relevant to the MAP module I'm starting on now, and I'd like to contribute. In particular, I'd like to respond to Simon's comment...
As the final stage of a PPP lesson can be a task, and the presentation and practise stages preparation for this, perhaps the distinction between TBL and PPP is not that clear. What do people think?
First off, I think you're using the word "task" here with a broader meaning than that used in the TBL sense. However, I basically agree with you: by which I meantersay that in practice the distinction between TBL and PPP is not clear-cut, even though the basic ideas are clearly different...
1) As I understand it, PPP is basically like this: teacher chooses a language item (e.g. "the present perfect", or "family vocab"), then finds or invents activities (tasks in a broad sense) that present that item and practise its production.
2) Again as I understand it, TBL is basically like this [see Jane Willis, Chapter 6 in "Challenge and Change..." ]: teacher chooses a meaning-focused language requiring task, then focuses on language items arising (i.e. items that Ss need to complete the task adequately, but can't produce).
3) So I think the basic ideas are very clearly different, almost opposites of each other. What's more, I think the PPP/TBL distinction is very useful for us. In practical application, though, I think we're likely to see overlap on all sorts of levels, for example...
a) Any reasonably free "practice" in a PPP lesson is likely to give rise to queries about other items, rather as in a TBL lesson.
b) The idea in TBL is that the important language items will sort of automatically identify themselves: but I think this in unlikely ever to be 100% true. In the final analysis, the teacher is surely going to be the principal judge of what language is needed, and pretty much the only judge of whether it's being produced with sufficient accuracy. Also, I think the teacher herself will almost certainly- and quite reasonably- tend to push the language focus towards items she feel comfortable with (e.g. that she judges to be useful for a majority of S; that she sees as coherent "topics"; and that she "knows how to explain").
c) Similarly, and although "pure" TBL requires the teacher to identify a task simply on grounds of communication needs, she is in the end likely to be following language criteria as well. In this connection, it's easy to imagine an entirely TBL class: much harder to imagine an entirely TBL coursebook.
Would people agree with this analysis?
Pinkie
Spain
PPP vs. TBL | James Hobbs | November 1st, 2001
Pinkie,
I'd agree with you that in practice the distinction is not that clear, in the sense that teachers might find them selves switching from PPP to TBL on a day to day basis without the students sensing any break in the normal routine of class. This is especially likely to be the case if, like me, you often find yourself putting together a course by selecting ready-to-go activities from a range of sources. I certainly find that I often do a purely TBL lesson with a class one week, and an essentially PPP lesson with the same class the following week, but the students don't seem to sense that anything important has changed.
Having said that, though, in my mind the distinction between TBL and PPP is still pretty cut-and-dry. Following Jane's explanation in Ch. 6 of Challenge and Change, it seems pretty clear that TBL differs from PPP in that the focus on language form comes at the end. Thus, the pre-task stage in TBL may engage students in reading or listening to materials full of examples of the target language, but the focus at this point must be on meanings, not on language form. In TBL it is only after the task cycle that there is a focus on language form. In PPP, meanwhile, the focus on language form comes at the pre-task stage, such that the "free" practice stage is in fact not free at all as students are conscious of constraints on the language to be used in completing the task. Thus, as Rita puts it:
TBL uses language as a means while PPP as an end
I also agree with Greg that the description advocated by Rod Ellis seems a little contradictory. I find it difficult to see how you can "focus attention on specific forms in the implementation of the task" while at the same time insisting "there must be a primary focus on meaning." Is he contradicting himself, or am I misreading him?
James
More on PPP vs. TBL | Jerry Talandis Jr. | October 31st, 2001
Hi Pinkie,
Yes, I'm with you on this one. Very nice analysis of TBL and PPP and the ties that bind them. I think you bring out an important point- when you look at an approach like PPP or TBL, they each form their own unique "worlds" with a particular viewpoint and internal logic. When you apply them in reality, you find there is a lot of overlap. I think that's true. When I do a task, for the language focus part, I haven't, as of yet, ever been ready to teach whatever grammar point came up. I went into the task with an idea of particular forms and prepared to teach them accordingly. I need to have some control over what my students learn, and I think most students want and expect that their teacher will guide them. Of course I want to develop their autonomy as well, but in terms of practicalities, I need to choose which language will be focused on most of the time.
Jerry
Re: More on PPP vs. TBL | Greg Birch | November 2nd, 2001
TBL folks,
I like Pinkie's remark that it is easier to imagine a TBL lesson but extremely difficult to imagine a TBL course. I make recordings of native speakers performing the tasks that I will have my students perform. This makes it extremely difficult to organize a course around a series of linguistic features. I simply haven't figured out how this would be possible, but does anyone use only tasks with students to the exclusion of using other material? I think you would be hard pressed to find a teacher who does. I certainly don't. I think most teachers use TBL to provide sts with opportunities to use the language and any focus on form would be incidental. By incidental, I mean that it is not preplanned as in Ellis' focused communicative tasks.
Greg
PPP/TBL | Ted Colclough | November 6th, 2001
Hi folks,
I'm a little late with this contribution but to be honest I've been working my way through a backlog of e-mails recently. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's my humble opinion on the subject of PPP/TBL.
Without wanting to say that one approach is "better" than the other, two particular aspects of TBL appeal to me personally.
1. I sometimes feel in PPP that the fact that a particular area of language has been highlighted prior to the production stage may restrict the students in their choice of language. In contrast, in TBL students seem more likely to use language more naturally in that they will try to say what they want to say in the language that seems most appropriate to them without any preoccupation with using a pre-prescribed item of language.
2. Having finished a task in TBL, the students seem to have a heightened awareness of the shortcomings in their language and are as a result highly motivated to then investigate more suitable alternatives.
Having said all that, I absolutely agree with all the comments advocating an eclectic mix of approaches to lesson planning. Depending on the group and what you are trying to teach them, a particular method often seems to suggest itself.
OK, that's it.
Cheers,
Ted
with 
and 
