Alan Granada is an ALT in Kanagawa, teaching English across elementary, junior, and senior high schools. He helps students build communicative confidence by starting from what they can already do and using Adrian Leis’ Task 1-Present-Practice-Task 2 framework, or TPPT, to guide them through input noticing, flexible output supports, and interaction tasks that gradually increase communicative load. Alan regularly engages with modern SLA research, adapting ideas suitable for his teaching context.

The Framework

Recently, I tried implementing the TPPT framework in a lesson focusing on the structure I want you to… I had first come across TPPT during a training session led by Prof. Adrian Leis. On paper, the sequence made a lot of sense, but I was curious to see what would happen once I tried it with my own students.

What interested me most wasn’t simply whether the lesson would run smoothly or whether students would respond well. I was equally curious about what it might do to the team-teaching dynamic. In my school, lessons are taught alongside a JTE (Japanese Teacher of English). Although we always work together, our roles can sometimes become predictable or overlap in ways that aren’t always intentional. I wondered whether TPPT, with its clearly defined stages, might naturally create a clearer rhythm between us. There was only one way to find out, so I stopped overthinking it and gave it a try.

This lesson was taught to a second-year Japanese junior high school class working at roughly CEFR A1 level. At this stage, students generally benefit from plenty of support. New language needs to be introduced carefully, with opportunities to notice patterns, practise them, and gradually use them with increasing confidence.

The Class

Like many teachers in Japan, I work within a curriculum built around specific grammar points for each unit. My aim wasn’t to replace that structure or suggest a completely different way of teaching. Instead, I wanted to see whether changing the lesson sequence could encourage more noticing, engagement, and meaningful language use while still working within the curriculum.

Initial Thoughts About TPPT

On paper, TPPT looked promising, but I wasn’t quite sure what to expect once I tried it in the classroom. The sequence felt familiar in some ways, but different enough to make me stop and think. It wasn’t PPP, yet it didn’t feel fully task-based either. What really caught my attention was the idea that students try to express something before the grammar is explained. It sounds like a small change, but it shifts the lesson’s starting point significantly.

Instead of opening with “Today’s grammar is…”, the lesson begins with “Let’s see what you can already say.” Students begin by drawing on what they already know, even if that knowledge is incomplete, rather than waiting for the teacher to provide the answer first.
Of course, that raised a few questions. Would students struggle with the opening task if they hadn’t seen the target language before? Would guided discovery help them notice the pattern, or simply leave them confused? And without a more traditional explanation at the beginning, would the lesson still feel clear and well structured?

At the same time, I kept coming back to the question that had interested me from the start. Beyond its impact on students, would this framework change the way my JTE and I worked together during the lesson?

Task 1: Activation and Gap Creation (ALT-led)

I opened the lesson with a simple situation:

“Your younger brother plays games until 1 a.m. every day. What do you say?”

Working in pairs, students discussed their ideas before writing them in English. Their responses were varied but familiar:

Stop.
You should sleep now.
Don’t play games.
Let’s play together.

I wrote their suggestions on the board under the heading What we can say. Then I added one more sentence of my own, using plenty of expression and gesture:

I want you to sleep now.

Rather than explaining the new structure immediately, I let students compare it with the language they had already produced. We talked about questions such as: Is this advice, or is it something stronger? Who would normally say this? How is it different from You should..?

The goal wasn’t to teach the grammar straight away. It was to build on the language the students already had and create a reason for exploring something new.

Presentation: Listening, Reading, Guided Discovery (ALT + JTE)

During the presentation stage, my JTE and I shared the lesson more deliberately. Rather than one of us leading while the other supported, we moved naturally between roles as we modelled short dialogues for the class.

A: I want you to go to bed earlier. (Mother)
B: But I’m not sleepy yet. (Child)
A: I want you to pass the ball more. (Coach)
B: Okay. I’ll try. (Player)

Students listened first, then followed the conversations in writing. Instead of explaining the pattern, I
asked a series of noticing questions in English: Who are the speakers? What words keep appearing?
What comes after “want you”?

My JTE then followed up in Japanese, encouraging students to discuss the pattern and explain what
they had noticed in their own words. Working across both languages helped students gradually arrive
at the structure themselves.

By the time we introduced I want you to + verb, it felt less like a new grammar point and more like
confirmation of something they had already begun to notice.

Practice: Meaning First, Then Form (JTE-led)

For the practice stage, I had originally planned to give students scenarios in English. The more I thought about it, however, the more I felt that Japanese prompts would encourage deeper thinking. Instead of reusing language from earlier examples, students would first have to understand the situation before deciding how to express it in English. One prompt, for example, was あなたの友達は全然英語を練習しません。Your friend doesn’t practise English at all.

Students worked in pairs to produce advice in English, and we encouraged them to go a step further by adding an extra sentence: I want you to practise English. It’s useful.

Writing before speaking also made a noticeable difference. It gave students time to organize their thoughts, increased accuracy, and helped quieter learners participate with greater confidence. Once they had finished writing, they read their responses to their partner and continued the conversation.

The classroom settled into a rhythm that felt both focused and purposeful. Students spent time thinking, writing, speaking, and listening, while my JTE and I moved around the room responding to the language that emerged. Sometimes that meant refining grammar through recasts or gentle corrections. At other times, it meant encouraging students to develop their ideas a little further.

Task 2: Advice Corner (ALT-led, Joint Support)

By the final stage of the lesson, students were ready to move beyond controlled practice and use the language more freely. I introduced an activity called Advice Corner, where students shared real or imagined problems, and their classmates responded with advice.

Although the target expression remained I want you to…, students naturally drew on other language they already knew. Alongside the target structure, I also heard You should… and You must…, often followed by their own reasons or explanations. Rather than trying to keep every response within a single grammatical pattern, we encouraged students to express their ideas as naturally as they could.

As the conversations developed, my JTE and I moved around the room responding to the language we heard. Sometimes we helped students clarify what they wanted to say. At other times, we refined grammar through recasts or brief prompts. The framework provided the structure; our role was to respond to what students actually produced.

After teaching the lesson again, I made one small adjustment. Instead of an open class discussion, I introduced a more structured pair activity called Senpai’s Advice. Students took turns giving advice, responding, and then extending the conversation with an additional reason or detail. The interaction became a little more controlled, but it also ensured that every student remained actively involved rather than contributing only a single sentence.

Reflection on Team-Teaching Dynamics

Looking back, the most interesting outcome wasn’t actually the grammar. It was the way the lesson changed how my JTE and I worked together. Without consciously planning it, the different stages of TPPT seemed to encourage a natural division of roles. I took the lead during the opening task, where the goal was to surface students’ existing language. During the presentation stage, we shared responsibility while modelling conversations and guiding students towards noticing the pattern for themselves. The practice stage naturally shifted towards my JTE, before both of us moved around the room together during the final communicative task, responding to the language students produced.

Rather than feeling like one teacher leading and the other supporting, the lesson felt genuinely collaborative. The framework didn’t assign us fixed roles. It simply gave each stage a different purpose, and our teaching adapted to the purpose.

Of course, not everything went smoothly. Some students relied heavily on Japanese during pair work, others hesitated during the guided discovery stage, and Task 2 still required plenty of support and adjustment. Yet those moments actually highlighted one of the strengths of team teaching. Having two teachers listen, observe, and respond meant students received support that would have been difficult for either of us to provide alone.

Reflection on the Framework

The more I use TPPT, the less I think of it as a completely new method and the more I see it as a different way of sequencing learning. Rather than beginning with an explanation, it begins with what students can already do and gradually builds towards more confident communication.

One aspect that has become particularly clear is the movement from accuracy to fluency. The opening stages encourage students to notice patterns, practise them carefully, and build confidence before they are expected to use the language more freely. By the final task, the emphasis shifts. Students are communicating ideas rather than simply producing correct sentences, while the teacher supports accuracy through timely feedback rather than constant correction.

Perhaps the biggest change, however, has been in my own teaching. Beginning with student output means listening more carefully and resisting the temptation to explain everything immediately. Instead of directing every step, I find myself responding more often to what students actually say. That small shift has helped me understand not only how my students learn, but also how I teach.

Closing Thoughts

This was only one lesson, and I certainly don’t see it as a final answer. Even so, it changed the way I think about sequencing, student participation, and team teaching. For me, TPPT isn’t about abandoning structure. It’s about rearranging that structure so students begin with what they already know and teachers spend a little more time listening before explaining.

The lesson answered some of my questions, but it raised even more. If students could successfully notice and use a single structure through this sequence, what would happen if the language became less predictable and the choices more complex? That question became the starting point for Lesson 2.