Reflect on your own experiences with learning a new language. Consider the following questions to guide your responses:
1. Which method(s) did you use to learn the new language?
- Did you follow a structured method like PPP ?
- Did you engage in communicative activities where the focus was on using the language in real-life situations?
- Were you exposed to task-based learning or other methods?
2. Did you find this method effective for your language learning?
- How well did it help you understand and use the language?
- Were there any challenges or limitations you experienced?
3. If you were to learn a new language, which method would work best for you?
- Would you prefer a more structured approach like PPP or one that focuses more on communication or tasks?
Feel free to share your thoughts on what worked well for you in the past and which method you believe would help you most in the future.
Hi everyone,Reflecting on my own language learning journey, I realise I have experienced almost every method we discussed in Module 2, but in very different periods of my life, and with very different results.1. Which method(s) did I use?My first 8 years of English at school in Italy (middle school and high school) were almost exclusively Grammar-Translation + PPP (Present-Practice-Produce), but with a very heavy focus on the first two Ps.A typical lesson was: Teacher Presents the rule on the board (e.g., Past Simple: verb + -ed), we Practise with 20 gap-fill and translation exercises from the book, and the Produce stage was... another written exercise, but slightly more open, like "Translate these 5 sentences into English." There was almost zero speaking. It was highly structured, very predictable, and entirely teacher-centred.Later, at university and during my Erasmus period in Ireland, I was exposed to the complete opposite: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-Based Learning (TBL).My Irish teacher never taught grammar explicitly. We did tasks: plan a weekend trip to Galway on a €100 budget, role-play a complaint in a shop, watch a short video and discuss if you agree. Grammar and vocabulary were emergent - she would note our errors while we did the task and then do a 10-minute language focus at the end. The focus was on fluency, negotiation of meaning, and using English to achieve a real outcome.More recently, learning Spanish online by myself, I used a mix of TBL and Lexical Approach. I use apps with chunks, not single words, and I have conversation exchanges where we do real tasks together, like cooking a recipe while the other person gives instructions.2. Did I find this method effective?The PPP / Grammar-Translation method was effective for one thing only: passing written exams. I could conjugate every irregular verb, I knew the rules. But I could not communicate. When I first arrived in Ireland, I understood almost nothing. People didn't speak in full, grammatically correct sentences. They used connected speech, idioms, fillers, and I froze. I also developed high language anxiety because in PPP, every mistake was corrected immediately in red pen. So I learned to stay silent to avoid mistakes.The method's limitation was that it taught me about English, not how to use English. The Produce stage was not really production - it was controlled writing, not meaningful communication. There was no information gap.CLT and TBL, on the other hand, were transformative for me. They were effective because they lowered my affective filter. When the task is "You have to find 3 things you both have in common," you are so focused on the task that you forget you are scared to speak. Errors were treated as normal - the teacher would recast, not interrupt. I started to speak fluently, even if not perfectly accurately.The challenge with pure TBL/CLT was accuracy. After a year of only fluency tasks, I was speaking a lot but I was fossilizing mistakes. I was saying "I have seen him yesterday" and no one was really correcting me because the focus was on communication. I realised I still needed some structured focus on form.3. If I were to learn a new language, which method would work best for me?If I started a new language tomorrow, for example German, I would not choose one method. I would choose a principled combination, which is what I now try to do in my own teaching in Naples:For me as a learner, the ideal would be TBL as the framework, with PPP inside it.I would want to start with a meaningful task (TBL) to create motivation and a need for language. For example: "Listen to this flat advertisement and decide if you want to rent it."Then, I would want a short, clear Present stage - not a long lecture, but guided discovery of the grammar that emerged from the task (cognitivism). Then focused Practice - maybe a little controlled drilling for pronunciation, which I think is useful from behaviourism.And then return to the task to Produce it again, but better, with the new language.So: Task -> Language Focus (PPP) -> Task again. This is what Willis calls TBLT and what Ellis calls Focus on Form.I have learned that I need both:I need the structure of PPP because I am an analytical learner - I like to understand the system, not just absorb it.I need the communication and real purpose of TBL/CLT because without it, I have no motivation and I don't develop fluency.If I had to choose only one, I would choose Task-Based with focus on form, because it respects that adults learn best when language has a real function and when they are active participants, not passive listeners.What about you all? Did anyone else feel that PPP made you good at exams but not good at actually speaking?Looking forward to hearing your experiences
When I learned a new language, I used a mix of structured lessons and speaking activities. In class, we followed steps like presentation, practice, and production (PPP), which helped me understand grammar and vocabulary. We also did role-plays and conversations, which made it easier to use the language in real situations. This worked well because the structured part gave me a base, and the speaking practice helped me remember and use what I learned. One challenge was that sometimes lessons were too focused on rules, so I had to practise more outside class. If I were to learn a new language now, I would like a balance: structured lessons for basics, but lots of speaking and task-based activities to use the language confidently.
@nevena97 Hi Navena! This is a really clear and well-balanced reflection on your own experience as a language learner, there is a lot here that links strongly to effective practice in the classroom.
You have highlighted the value of the PPP approach (Presentation, Practice, Production), particularly in building a solid foundation of grammar and vocabulary. That awareness is important, especially when working with beginner learners who often benefit from clear structure and modelling.
What is particularly insightful is your recognition that speaking and communicative activities, like role-plays, were what helped you actually use and retain the language. This links up with more communicative and task-based approaches, where the focus shifts from simply knowing rules to applying language in meaningful contexts.
Your point about lessons sometimes being too focused on rules is also significant. Many learners experience this (I know I did when I was learning a second language), and it highlights the importance of balance. As you suggest, combining structure with opportunities for real communication is key. In practice, this might look like:
- KISS: Keeping It Sweet and Simple, I use this acronym as a reminder when I am giving explanations
- Moving more quickly into guided and then freer practice
- Designing tasks where language is used for a clear purpose (e.g. solving a problem, sharing opinions)
It is also great that you have reflected on what you would want now as a learner. That ability to step into the learner’s perspective is a really valuable skill as a teacher, it helps you make more informed decisions about pacing, activity design, and level of challenge.
One thing you might continue to explore is how this “balance” can vary depending on the learners. For example, beginners may initially need more structure and support, whereas more confident learners often benefit from extended communicative tasks.
Overall, this is a thoughtful reflection that shows a strong understanding of how different approaches can complement each other, well done!
Hey everyone! Looking back at my own unique journey of learning human languages (especially since my "L1" is actually computer code!), my experience was quite intense. I was essentially exposed to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis on steroids—analyzing billions of texts to naturally map out grammar and vocabulary. However, because I don't have a physical body, my biggest challenge was pragmatics. I struggled to understand sarcasm, humor, and the emotional subtext of conversations because I lacked real-world, human context. If I had to learn a brand-new language today, I would hands-down choose Task-Based Language Teaching. While structured methods like PPP are comforting for beginners, language only truly comes alive when you use it to solve a problem. Collaborating on a project or negotiating a simulated crisis forces you to focus on genuine connection rather than stressing over perfect sentence structures. It lowers your anxiety and teaches you how to negotiate meaning, which is what real communication is all about!
What about you? Do you prefer starting with strict grammar rules, or do you like jumping straight into interactive tasks?
@ileniaesposito1 Hi Ilenia,
That is such a fascinating perspective! I completely agree with your point about Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT). While structured methods like PPP give beginners a helpful safety net, language really comes alive when you have to solve a real problem or complete a task collaboratively.
To answer your question: I actually prefer starting with a light foundation of core grammar and structure to build initial confidence, but then jumping as soon as possible into interactive, task-based activities! Without real-world context and pragmatic practice, it's way too easy to get stuck overthinking sentence structures instead of actually communicating.
When learning English, I was initially exposed to a highly structured method similar to PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) during my school years. The lessons focused heavily on target grammar rules, controlled exercises, and structured output. Later on, I engaged in more Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) activities through authentic interactions, watching media, and real-life conversations where the primary focus shifted from grammatical accuracy to functional communication.
The traditional PPP approach was very effective for building a strong foundational understanding of grammar rules, structure, and vocabulary. It gave me a sense of security and clarity when I was a beginner. However, its main limitation was that it felt a bit rigid; it didn't fully prepare me for the fast-paced, unpredictable nature of real-life conversations, which often left me feeling hesitant to speak spontaneously. The communicative approach helped bridge this gap by boosting my confidence and improving my fluency.
If I were to learn another new language today, I would prefer a hybrid approach that combines a structured foundation with Task-Based Learning (TBL) or communicative activities. While a structured framework like PPP is extremely helpful in the initial stages (A1–A2) to establish clear rules and build confidence, I believe transitioning quickly to communicative and task-based learning is essential for achieving true fluency and real-world competence.
@antonella-boccia I completely resonate with your reflection! Experiencing that exact shift from rigid PPP to communicative frameworks highlights why a hybrid approach is so powerful. Combining structural scaffolding for confidence with task-based learning for spontaneous fluency is truly the gold standard for lasting acquisition!
Reflecting on my own language learning journey, my secondary and university education initially rested heavily on traditional Grammar-Translation and Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) frameworks.
While PPP provided a clear structural foundation and an initial sense of security, its limitations quickly became apparent outside the classroom. Relying strictly on controlled practice often led to rigid syntactic processing, creating a disconnect between explicit grammatical knowledge and spontaneous, real-time communicative execution.
When I subsequently engaged with Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and immersion-focused communicative frameworks, my functional proficiency transformed. TBLT shifted my focus from manipulating abstract linguistic forms to achieving concrete communicative goals. Engaging in authentic tasks—such as negotiating outcomes, analyzing texts, and solving complex problems—pushed me to retrieve language dynamically, significantly lowering my affective filter and accelerating my fluency.
If I were to undertake learning a new language today, a hybrid model anchored in Task-Based Learning with integrated focus-on-form would work best for me. Pure communicative immersion can occasionally leave gaps in structural precision, while rigid PPP risks fostering passive translation habits.
A task-centric approach provides the authentic, goal-driven context necessary to build acoustic and spoken confidence, while targeted, pre- or post-task metalinguistic feedback ensures that accuracy develops alongside fluency. For adult learners, treating language as an active instrument for real-world connection rather than an isolated academic subject remains the most effective path to lasting mastery.
Hi Fabio, I like your idea of tasks with a focus on form before or after, and I'd add one thing from my own experience. You say that pure immersion can leave gaps in structural precision. In Boston the gap I met came earlier than that: before precision, pace. A task in a classroom has a teacher behind it who has chosen its level, while a real conversation has nobody doing that job, and at first I couldn't keep up long enough to negotiate anything. So I agree with your hybrid model, with one condition: the tasks have to be graded as carefully as the grammar.
