3 Is The Magic Number Jason Anderson 2018

is the magic number
50 years of planning ‘paradigms’ in ELT
Jason Anderson
Teaching House, London, UK
15th August 2018
www.jasonanderson.org.uk
Quick quiz: Do you know your lesson planning frameworks?
1. What are the separate stages of each framework? Add them.

2. In which ones is the order of the elements flexible? Write ‘F’.
TTT (e.g. Senour, 1930) Framework for task-based learning (Willis, 1996)
PPP (Byrne, 1976, 1986)
OHE (Lewis, 1993)

ESA (Harmer, 1998)
ARC (Scrivener, 1994)

CAP(E) (Anderson, 2017)
III (McCarthy & Carter, 1995)
Jason Anderson | 3 is the magic number| Teaching House, London, Aug. 2018| www.jasonanderson.org.uk 2
Structure of the rest of the talk… (hopefully)
• Past frameworks in mainstream teaching
• TTT – origins and history
• PPP – origins, influence and critique
• Fin de siècle reaction to PPP – “challenge and change”
• III and OHE
• Willis’s Framework for TBL
• Scrivener’s ARC
• Harmer’s ESA
• Anderson’s CAP(E)
• Time for questions
Where do these frameworks come from?
Herbart’s “recitation” (discussed in Dewey 1910, p. 202):
• 1. Preparation 2. Presentation 3. Association/Comparison 4.
Generalisation 5. Application.
Dewey notes (p.202) it “has probably had more and better influence
upon the "hearing of lessons" than all others put together.”
“Five-step lesson plans” are common in 1980s (Shulman 1986, p. 10):
• 1. Lesson introduction, 2. New material/skill/knowledge, 3. Guided
practice, 4. Independent practice, 5. Conclusion/assessment.
Geoff Petty’s “evidence-based” PAR model (2014, p. 172):
• Present, Apply, Review.
TTT stands for test-teach-test
TTT (see, e.g. Senour, 1930) dates back to 1920s
Ngram: http://goo.gl/CPt4WP
TTT (see, e.g. Senour, 1930) dates back to 1920s:
Senour mentions a “new type of spelling book”, p.700)
Senour’s research describes weekly rota:
• Monday test and study
• Tuesday study of words misspelt on Monday
• Wednesday test as Monday
• Thursday test esp. words missed on Wednesday
• Friday final test
Retests 4 weeks and 3 months later: Strong evidence
of successful retention. Recent research on learning of
lexis supports this (e.g. Kasper, 1993).
• TTT returns to prominence in 1990s, esp. in special needs
education (Nash, 2007).
• Also rises in prominence in ELT, esp. for vocabulary learning
(e.g. Kasper, 1993).
• Oxford (2018, pp.88-89) discusses T-T-T in Feuerstein’s
(2006) Vygotskian framework for dynamic assessment.
• Ellis & Shintani (2014, p. 78): “Words and formulaic
sequences, then, are not subject to the same constraints that
govern the acquisition of grammar.” i.e. PPP or TTT may be
OK for vocabulary learning.
PPP stands for presentation-practice-production
• Originates in Byrne’s (1976, p.2) Teaching Oral English (Anderson, 2017a)
• Byrne v. probably simplified Dakin’s (1973, p.4) 4-stage model:
• Presentation, practice, development, testing
• Note Dakin’s influence on Corder’s (1967) work (Howatt, 1984).
• PPP is early communicative model, not audiolingual (Anderson, 2017a).
• I note “Dakin and Byrne were questioning, if not rejecting, the then-
dominant audiolingual approach to errors and their correction, providing a
justification for freer language practice opportunities that would pave the
way for more communicative activities in the classroom” (p. 220).
• PPP was very influential, prob. due to use as first paradigm of pre-service
courses (e.g. RSA CTEFLA, later to become CELTA).
Fin de siècle reaction to PPP
• Byrne tried to argue for
its flexibility (1986).
Mentions of PPP in
• Esp. in Challenge and ELT Journal, from
Change (Willis & Willis, Anderson, 2017a,
1996), numerous © OUP.
authors attacked it.
III stands for illustration-interaction-induction
• (McCarthy & Carter, 1995, p. 217) added III to end of an interesting paper
on spoken grammar (inflexible):
• “‘Illustration’ here means wherever possible examining real data which is
presented in terms of choices of forms relative to context and use.
‘Interaction’ means that learners are introduced to discourse-sensitive
activities which focus on interpersonal uses of language and the
negotiation of meanings, and which are designed to raise conscious
awareness of these interactive properties through observation and class
discussion. ‘Induction’ takes the consciousness-raising a stage further by
encouraging learners to draw conclusions about the interpersonal
functions of different lexicogrammatical options, and to develop a
capacity for noticing such features as they move through the different
stages and cycles of language learning.”
• Why, I wonder, didn’t it catch on?
OHE stands for observe-hypothesise-experiment
• OHE (Lewis, 1993) was intended to “replace” the “behaviourist” PPP (p. 6).
• OHE was a normative, inflexible framework.
• Lewis notes: “explanation must be replaced by student-centred exploration,
a procedure where students are presented with language data and, usually
in small groups to take advantage of the different cognitive styles of
different group members, students themselves describe what they 'see'.
Put simply, the students 'write their own grammar rules’.” (p. 149)
• cf. Norrington-Davies: Teaching grammar from rules to reasons (2016)
Why didn’t it catch on?
• Lewis didn’t really describe lesson frameworks (either 1993, or 1997), but
saw the OHE process as an individual one (i.e. it can’t be ‘taught’). Teaching
needs to provide conditions for natural OHE.
Willis’s Framework for task-based learning Pre-task
• Included 3 main stages (Willis, 1996a). Introduction to topic and task
• Normative model. Inflexible order. Task cycle

Argued for as replacement for PPP. task → planning → report
• Most concrete attempt at a “How to…” Language focus

guide for TBLT – practical, with extensive analysis and practice
exemplification.
• I quite liked it… my students didn’t 
• Even Willis recognised difficulties: “A
task-based approach may not
immediately fit in with their views of
classroom learning, so introducing TBL
will not always be easy.” (1996a, p. 137)
• Trainee teacher: “TBL is like a sort of PPP
upside down…” (1996b, p.61)
ARC stands for authentic-restricted-clarification
• Scrivener (1996) argued for a descriptive, not prescriptive (a la PPP)
model, that saw language learning from the learner’s perspective.
• It was the first model designed to be flexible. A, R, and C were seen
to be building blocks of lessons.
• Model was fairly simple and clear, and caught on for a while.
Why didn’t it supplant PPP?
• Not sure. Perhaps because the elements
were too similar to PPP’s and the latter was
established and easier to remember?
A
• Perhaps ‘authentic’ and ‘restricted’ didn’t
clearly imply ‘use’ of language?
R C
ESA stands for engage-study-activate
• Harmer’s (1998) flexible, descriptive model. Like ARC, it was
designed to describe the building blocks (elements) of a lesson.
• “Engage” was an original element, making motivation/interest more
central, adding an affective element to the planning process.
• Trainees seem to get the stages quickly, but then…
• … trainee questions: “Shouldn’t all stages be engaging?” “How do
receptive skills fit into study/activate distinction?”
How successful is it?
• A number of centres use it today in pre-service
teacher training.
From Bill
Harris’s (2015)
IATEFL talk:
Bill Harris, IATEFL
Manchester:
Where are we now?
Teaching paradigms
in initial training in
2015.
My research: What about context?
• Anderson (2017b, 2017c) argued that context is seen as central to
understanding new language, also dominant in text-based language
teaching (e.g., Feez, 1998). But where is it in PPP, ESA, ARC, TBLT,
TTT? It’s only present (but not v. clear) in OHE and III.
• I took descriptive, not normative, perspective – focus on
understanding practice, rather than trying to influence it.
• Also analysed materials: How do coursebooks present new
language today?
Analysis
Speakout
Elementary
Eales &
Context Practice
Oakes 2011
© Pearson
Jason Anderson | 3 is the

Jason Anderson magic number|
| Warwick/SJTU Teaching
ELT Professional House, London,
Development ProgrammeAug.
2018 2018| www.jasonanderson.org.uk
17 17
Contexts for the introduction of new language in 1st editions of ELT coursebooks
Image-supported
1986 2000 2013
The CAP / CAPE model (detailed)
CAP(E): alternative ‘lesson shapes’
Is CAP(E) catching on?
• Global coursebooks don’t seem to be changing: CAP definitely
suits them.
• Being used on a number of preservice courses, esp. Trinity
CertTESOL (Anderson, 2017d).
• Works well with grammar,
functional and productive skills
lessons.
• Compatible with text-based
language teaching (Feez, 1998).
• Doesn’t work so well with lexis
or receptive skills.
Why is 3 the magic number?
Any ideas?
:
a) English teachers can’t count to 4.

b) EU regulation 47.2B: ‘Any planning paradigm with four or more
elements will be subject to income tax at a rate of 7%...’ (p. 739,
EU Charter on Fair Planning, 2004).
c) Rule of 3 in advertising and writing: 3 is the smallest amount of
information that can create a pattern.
Structure of the talk… How did I do?
• Past frameworks in mainstream teaching
• TTT – origins and history
• PPP – origins, influence and critique
• Fin de siècle reaction to PPP – “challenge and change”
• III and OHE
• Willis’s Framework for TBL
• Scrivener’s ARC
• Harmer’s ESA
• Anderson’s CAP(E)
• Time for questions… e.g. which pub?
References See my website for pdf of slides and free CAP resources: www.jasonanderson.org.uk
Anderson, J. (2017a). A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal. ELT Journal, 71, Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove, United Kingdom: English
218-227. Language Teaching Publications.
Anderson, J. (2017b). Context, Analysis, Practice. IATEFL Voices 256, 4-5. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1995). Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teach
Anderson, J. (2017c). CAP - Context, Analysis, Practice: A lesson planning model for language it? ELT Journal, 49, 207-218.
teacher education. IATEFL Teacher Training and Education SIG Newsletter, Spring 2017, 15-18. Nash, R. T. (2007). Test-Teach-Test paradigm. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen
Anderson, J. (2017d). Trinity CertTESOL companion. Peaslake, United Kingdom: Delta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education, Volume 1 (3rd ed.) (pp.2003-2004).
Publishing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Byrne, D. (1976/1986). Teaching oral English. Harlow, United Kingdom: Longman. Norrington-Davies, D. (2016). Teaching grammar: From rules to reasons. Brighton:
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Pavilion.
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161–70. Oxford, R. L. (2018). Language learning strategies. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.),
Dakin, J. (1973). The language laboratory and language learning. Harlow, United Kingdom: The Cambridge guide to learning English as a second language (pp.81-90) Cambridge,
Longman. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath. Petty, G. (2014). Evidence-based teaching: A practical approach (2nd ed.). Oxford,
Eales, F., & Oakes, S. (2011). Speakout: Elementary students’ book Harlow, United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Pearson Scrivener, J. (1996). ARC: A descriptive model for classroom work on language. In J.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 79-92).
acquisition research. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge. Oxford, United Kingdom : Macmillan Heinemann.
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., Rand, Y., & Feuerstein, R. S. (2006). Creating and enhancing cognitive Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
modifiability: The Feuerstein instrumental enrichment program. Jerusalem, Israel: ICELP. Widdowson, H. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford, United
Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman. Kingdom : Oxford University Press.
Harris, B. (2015). Where are we now? Current teaching paradigms in pre-service training. Willis, J. (1996a). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, United Kingdom :
Paper presented at the 49th International IATEFL Annual Conference, Manchester, UK. Longman.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Willis, J. (1996b). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis
Press. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford, United Kingdom :
Kasper, L. F. (1993). The keyword method and foreign language vocabulary learning: A Macmillan Heinemann.
rationale for its use. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 244-251. Willis, J. & Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62).
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, United Oxford, United Kingdom : Macmillan Heinemann.
Kingdom: English Language teaching Publications.

3 Is The Magic Number Jason Anderson 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Is The Magic Number Jason Anderson 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Is The Magic Number Jason Anderson 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

is the magic number

50 years of planning ‘paradigms’ in ELT

1. What are the separate stages of each framework? Add them.

PPP (Byrne, 1976, 1986)

OHE (Lewis, 1993)

ARC (Scrivener, 1994)

III (McCarthy & Carter, 1995)

• Normative model. Inflexible order. Task cycle

• Most concrete attempt at a “How to…” Language focus

Jason Anderson | 3 is the

1986 2000 2013

a) English teachers can’t count to 4.

You might also like