‘Teacher trainers and educators don’t tell pre-service or practicing teachers about the research findings on interlanguage development.’ Instructed-SLA research favours implicit, meaning-focused learning over the presentation and practice of pre-selected items, so PPP coursebook teaching persists against the evidence.

Claim

CELTA-type courses and influential trainers (Ur, Harmer, Dellar & Walkley) teach PPP and coursebook-driven ELT without examining whether it works.

Research cited

Doughty (2003) “Instructed SLA” in Doughty & Long (eds) Handbook of SLA; Whong, Gil & Marsden (2014) SLR 30(4); Bryfonski & McKay (2017) TBLT meta-analysis, LTR; Long (2015) SLA and TBLT; Corder (1967), Selinker (1972), Long (1983).

What he proposes

  • Teach SLA findings early (his sketch: ~15% of a course on how people learn an L2), then approaches, the language, management, syllabus design.
  • Meaning-first teaching: comprehensible input, participation, feedback. TBLT as the alternative.
  • Five questions for trainers, e.g. “What is your view of the English language?” “What types of syllabus do you discuss?”

Counter-arguments (comments)

  • Heyman: teachers know the theory but lack workable ways to implement TBLT; the coursebook is the path of least resistance.
  • McCutcheon: pre-service trainees lack the language expertise for good focus on form, so they end up with “a bastardised version” of TBLT.
  • Exam washback and institutional constraints aren’t addressed (Claude).

Apply in my context (Claude)

Connections

Research mediators vs craft knowledge - the Penny Ur debate · Long’s TBLT as the alternative to coursebook PPP · Grammar should be taught through lexis, not PPP rules (Dellar, whom Jordan also attacks)