Presentation-practice-production. Presentation-practice-production is a teaching method that, as its name suggests, follows three stages that are used throughout a teaching session (Shintani, 2016, 3). The presentation part provides the learners with the linguistic feature that will be this lesson's focus point, which may be done with the goal of making the learners acquire the knowledge inductively or deductively. The second part, practice, makes the learners do exercises with the given language feature, reflecting a high level of teacher control. Checking the learners' production with accuracy is the end goal. Lastly, in the production stage, the learners are given tasks that prompt them to produce the grammatical feature in a less controlled fashion than in the practice part of the lesson. At this stage, the objective is fluency with the linguistic feature through use in autonomous and creative activities (Criado, 2013, 99-100). Thus, in contrast to TBLT, PPP focuses on explicitly teaching the chosen material. Nevertheless, the production phase is similar to an uncontrolled task in the TBLT fashion, with the target linguistic feature being disclosed. PPP has, in recent years, been criticised for rejecting meaning in favour of forms, especially when keeping in mind that it is based on behaviourist models of teaching. However, some scholars would still hold that the modern use of PPP still has a place in language teaching as one among several techniques ready for use (Criado, 2013, 111-112). Some scholars also hold that explicit knowledge of forms, or so-called metalinguistic knowledge, may help learners process these features and facilitate development of linguistic competency (Xxxxx & Xxxxxxxx, 2014, 20) Accordingly, testing the effects of teaching methods like PPP and TBLT should be a priority as the issue is still debated.
Presentation-practice-production. The presentation of the grammatical constructions went well, and the students seemed to pay attention at first; however, they seemed to lose attention towards the end of the presentation. After the presentation, the students reported (prompted by the instructor) that they found the presentation tedious and difficult when the constructions became more complicated. During the practice stage, the students seemed to find some of the situational grammar tasks challenging, especially those with long-distance agreement. The students also seemed to find this task a bit boring. The next task was, reportedly, more enjoyable, and the students seemed to like the competitive aspect. During the production stage of the session, the students were given pictures and asked to describe the actions present in the pictures, hoping to produce the targeted grammatical construction. Unfortunately, the participants produced fewer sentences containing the targeted structure than expected. However, all groups produced some sentences and managed to discuss them with each other. In sum, the session was mostly successful, and the students seemed to enjoy the assignments when they went beyond just grammar-related tasks or instruction.
