Jason Anderson

Test-teach-test is one of a number of lesson planning frameworks that are taught widely on short certification courses for English language teaching (ELT), such as the Cambridge CELTA and the Trinity CertTESOL. There are numerous overviews of it on internet blogs (e.g., British Council, n.d.), YouTube videos (e.g., Bolen, 2022) and in guides for such courses (e.g., Harmer, 2007). However, unlike most other three-stage frameworks (e.g., PPP¹, ESA², CAP³), the origins of test-teach-test are somewhat mysterious. It seems to have become commonplace in ELT discourse during the 1990s – a time when prominent methodologists in Anglosphere ELT were promoting frameworks that were much more in keeping with the learner-centred/communicative zeitgeist of the time. For example, Jim Scrivener’s ARC⁴ (1994), Jeremy Harmer’s ESA (1998) and, of course, task-based language teaching (e.g., Willis, 1996b) all promoted frameworks that centralised lesson stages involving ‘authentic’, meaningful communication among learners. In contrast, test-teach-test, implies a much more teacher-centred, transmissive approach. So where does it come from, how did it get into ELT methodology and how is it understood and interpreted in its current usage? This blog post reports on a mini-project I engaged in to answer these questions. It is a “working blog post”, so those who can provide relevant insights, references and corrections are invited to add comments below (amendments will be credited and dated).

The origins of test-teach-test

References to test-teach-test (TTT⁵) appear suddenly in the literature on education in the mid-1920s, peaking in 1931, then falling dramatically in the post-war era  (see Figure 1). A contemporary source, an empirical study of the effectiveness of TTT (Senour, 1930), indicates that it was prominent in academic discourse in the USA at the time (p. 700). A number of sources (e.g., Causey, 1955; Kelty, 1928, in Barton, 2005; Tressler, 1945) identify the origin of test-teach-test in the work of Henry Clinton Morrison (1871-1945), a professor at the University of Chicago and author, who had also worked as a teacher and state superintendent of public instruction. Specifically, Morrison’s The Practice of Teaching in the Secondary School (1926; revised 1931) seems by all accounts to be the first published source of TTT; its publication dates corroborating the first Ngram peak in Figure 1. In Chapter VI, Morrison sets out his subsequently influential (e.g., for Bloom, 1973) ‘Mastery Formula’ for teaching as follows:

THE MASTERY FORMULA.—The units having been identified, the next problem is the technique of pedagogical attack. Here we apply what we shall call the “mastery formula”: Pre-test, teach, test the result, adapt procedure, teach and test again to the point of actual learning. (Morrison, 1931, p. 81, emphasis added, capitalisation in original)

In the Chapter, Morrison makes frequent analogies to other fields of applied science (e.g., agriculture, medicine) to justify the approach within what many would probably considered a behaviourist view of learning today. Nonetheless, it is notable that over 40 years before Scriven (1967) coined the distinction between formative and summative evaluation (later assessment), Morrison was arguing for the need for both diagnostic and formative assessment (although he does not use these terms) to guide and evaluate instructional practice. He argues that the “pre-test” serves two important purposes, both to ascertain whether instruction is necessary and to prepare learners for it (p. 82). Concerning the second (re-)test phase, he notes

…the results of the testing member of the mastery formula are purely for the purpose of deciding: first, whether or not the teaching has in fact registered and the teacher can now go on to the next step or the next unit; or, second, what modification of procedure is needed, assuming that the test discloses that the teaching has not fully registered. (pp. 82-83)

Concerning the teaching phase, Morrison argued for different approaches (in contrast to some of his contemporaries) depending both on the “type” of instruction (e.g., science, creative activities, etc.) and specific learning content. At the time, foreign languages fell under “Language-arts type” instruction (p. 96). He noted:

In the  learning of languages, for instance, it is commonly necessary to learn the grammatical structure as well as the discourse use, and the two cannot be learned simultaneously, much less through the same form of teaching or the same learning process. The discourse use is a language-arts type; the grammar must be learned on science-type principles. (p. 97)

And specifically with regard to foreign languages, he observes, “In the teaching of a foreign language such as French, for instance, the process of vocalization frequently calls for use of the principles of the pure-practice type discussed below” (p. 97), advocating “the automatizing of certain products of learning” (p. 98) with regard to pure-practice content. 

Early uses of test-teach-test

Senour’s An Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Test-Teach-Test Method of Instruction in Spelling (1930) presents research conducted in 1927. It documents five stages to the intervention, rather than three (Morrison also advocated multiple stages if required) (summarised):

1. Monday – initial test of spelling on the list of words for the week.
2. Tuesday – pupils study the words misspelt.
3. Wednesday – second test of spelling.
4. Thursday – further study of the words, with a focus on those misspelt on Wednesday.
5. Friday – final test of the week.

Senour finds a marked improvement in the students’ spelling abilities, with 92% retention of the words taught in the study after four months, although no control group was included. For several decades after this, TTT was regularly recommended for literacy development, particularly the teaching of spelling in the USA (e.g., Golub et al., 1971; Tressler, 1945; Young, 1966):

A good slogan in teaching grammar, spelling, punctuation and capitalization is, “Every lesson a test and every test a lesson,” or to use Morrison’s wording, “Test, teach, test, teach, test, teach to the point of mastery. (Tressler, 1945, p. 250)

That’s a lot of testing!

By the mid-1970s, its use in guidance on literacy instruction in the US declines, as advocacy for more learner-centred practices increases, particularly with the rise in interest in cooperative learning (see, e.g., Johnson et al., 1973). Some references to TTT start to include recommendations to use the first test phase as a learner-specific diagnostic tool for use in an “individualized instructional program based on each student’s need” (Klumb & Otto, 1976, p. 101).

These snapshots from the past offer interesting, if anecdotal, insights to remind us that preoccupations with testing and accountability in education are not a recent occurrence.  

More recent uses of test-teach-test

From the 1970s onwards, TTT begins to gain new leases of life from a number of different fields (see Figure 4).  While a number of these “hits” for TTT in academic articles can be accounted for by scientific studies (using test-retest designs), we also see increases in its use in three areas. Firstly, in investigations into dynamic assessment (an area of Vygotskian sociocultural theory) (e.g., Kester et al., 2001; Wurtz et al., 1985). Secondly, in research into areas today categorised as Special/Specific Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), also often involving dynamic assessment (e.g., Laurie & Pesco, 2023; Missiuna & Samulels, 1989; Nash, 2008). And finally, research and theory on teaching “gifted children” (e.g., Shaughnessy et al., 1994; Tyerman, 1986).

How did test-teach-test get into English language teaching?

TTT begins to appear in publications related to ELT in the mid- to late-1990s, most often in relation to short certification courses (e.g., Cambridge CELTA, and Trinity CertTESOL) (e.g., Scrivener, 1994; Thornbury, 1999). Mention of it by a trainee teacher who was at the time studying on a RSA⁶ CTEFLA (the predecessor of the CELTA) in a study by Palfreyman (1993) indicates that it was already part of the methods curriculum on at least some such qualifications. Personal testimony from several authorities indicates that it may have become part of the IH Certificate (an earlier predecessor) somewhat earlier (Adrian Underhill, Jim Scrivener, pers. comm.). Underhill recalls the publication of Stevick’s influential Memory, Meaning and Method (1976), in which Stevick recommends a “Teach, then Test, then get out of the way” technique (p. 122). It is notable that Stevick seems to briefly criticise something similar to TTT in passing (p. 123):

[Teach then test] has often been subjected to a particular kind of distortion, which has changed it from a moderately helpful principle into a pernicious one. The distorted version is: “Teach, then test, then teach some more, all the way to the end of the course” (Stevick, 1976, pp. 122-123; use of quotes in original is emphatic, rather than a quote from a previous work).

Could this have sparked interest into what Stevick was, at the time, critical of? It is certainly a possibility that would fit with the above historical circumstances.

Underhill also suspects that TTT may have been associated with the audiolingual method. However, a search of various works on this method (academic, guides, reports, lesson plans) found no evidence of TTT (e.g., Axelrod & Bigelow, 1962; Brooks, 1975; Streiff & Estrada, 1962). A search of materials for trainer professional development from the subsequent period (e.g., RSA trainer conference reports from the 1980s) was also fruitless. In short, this question concerning how TTT entered ELT remains unresolved. It is equally possible that it entered ELT from its use in (first language) literacy and spelling instruction.

The rise of Test-teach-test in ELT/TESOL

Evidence both from academic literature and from internet searches indicate that, since c. 2000, the proportion of references to TTT that discuss its application in language teaching has increased steadily, albeit with fluctuations (see Figures 5 and 6). It’s important to note that the general steep increase in (raw data) mentions of TTT in Figure 6 is a reflection more of the rise of the Internet itself, and also that the increase in proportion of language teaching references may reflect the continued expansion of ELT/TESOL worldwide, more than interest in TTT alone. It is also notable that in earlier editions of some publications, there is no mention of TTT (e.g., Harmer, 1998; Richards & Schmidt, 2002), yet in later versions of the same titles (respectively, Harmer, 2007; Richards & Schmidt, 2010) it is discussed (in both these cases it should be noted that the later edition was expanded). Nonetheless, with these caveats in mind, it does seem that discussion of TTT is increasing in language teaching. At the very least, it is possible to conclude that, like PPP (see Anderson, 2016, 2017a), TTT certainly isn’t going away any time soon. So how is it understood and interpreted in language teaching today?  

How test-teach-test is typically understood in ELT

Most references to TTT exist in practitioner guides, online sources (blog posts, YouTube introductions) and practitioner discussions, particularly around certification courses such as the CELTA and CertTESOL; it is much less frequently discussed in academic communities and publications. Some of these references to TTT interpret it fairly directly, seeing the first Test as diagnostic assessment and providing minimal, if any, indication of what either the testing or the teaching involve:

1  Discover what a learner can do in a certain area.

2  Attempt to teach the learner some of the things she apparently can’t do.

3  Check to see if learning has in fact taken place. (Woodward, 2001, p. 123)

However, the majority interpret TTT as a communicative language teaching framework, amenable for use within a task-based language teaching (TBLT) approach. In this sense, the “tests” are interpreted as performance-based, authentic assessments (through the tasks), rather than analytic assessments of ability or knowledge. In the first such example I could find, Thornbury (1999, p. 10) contrasts it with PPP (presentation-practice-production). He sees TTT as “a more reactive and problematizing approach” and characterises the test phases as follows:

…learners are first set a communicative task, on the basis of which their task-specific language needs are diagnosed. Some form of instruction is then provided, after which the initial task (or one similar) is repeated. (p. 10)

Similar interpretations, all mentioning tasks or task-based learning are offered by Gower et al. (2005), Bowen (2002; an early online source), Harmer (2007), Hadfield and Hadfield (2008), Anderson (2017b), Thornbury (2017) and others.

This understanding seems also to be shared by some ELT practitioners. For example, the extensive discussion documented in comments on Scott Thornbury’s blog (ironically, his entry on PPP (2011), which generated over 17,000 words in 90 comments) indicates that at least some practitioners within the Anglophone TEFL community also interpret the first and last Ts of TTT as tasks. Alongside observations from both Harmer (17/01/11; 11:30) and Thornbury that TTT “pre-dates task-based learning, and yet seems to share the same basic sequence” (Thornbury 17/01/11; 12:24), there is a comment by a reader, “Steph”, that offers interesting insights into how they interpret the different stages, including initial pre-task activities as part of the initial Test and practice opportunities during the Teach stage:

T= lead in to a task/brainstorm/tell anecdote/ – then students do the same. This is essentially a diagnostic stage. (…) Teachers gather the evidence of students [sic] productive ability.

T = Teach. highlight form, meaning pron. Do controlled practice, verbal/written.

T= give a similar task so students have the opportunity to put language from Teach phase into practice (Steph 19/01/11; 14:21)

Steph also identifies three advantages to TTT, when used in this way (summarised with additions in square brackets):

1. The initial Task can raise learners’ awareness about gaps in their productive ability [a noticing phase], particularly relative to their receptive knowledge about language, helping them to see the relevance of the task [and potentially the need for task repetition later in the lesson];
2. When the Teach phase involves responsive feedback on the initial task performance [as opposed to pre-planned ‘new language’ instruction], learners are likely to be more receptive to relevant [and emergent] language offered or elicited and clarified by the teacher;
3. If required, the Teach phase allows for controlled/restricted practice [of the kind that many teachers and learners find useful within the PPP framework].

Similarly, in his recent blog post on TTT, David Weller (2022) emphasises the importance of

1. observation during the first Task;
2. a range of presentation, practice and responsive teaching options during the Teach phase (including an original suggestion for differentiation);
3. a similar or identical task in the final phase.

Task-teach-task as task repetition

When considered as such – in its 21^st century manifestation – TTT has essentially become what we might call “task-teach-task”. While this alternative interpretation of the acronym has been proposed by a small number of writers (e.g., Apen, 2016; Hunsdon, 2015; Vitta, 2016), it’s notable that most are practitioners; this interpretation of TTT has attracted very little interest from academics to date. For example, Hunsdon (2015) provides a useful (if prescriptive) task-teach-task lesson planning pro forma that (at the time of writing) ranks highly on Google.com, but attracts only 1 citation on Google Scholar.

Within academic literature on TBLT, task-teach-task would likely be seen as a framework for task repetition, a topic that has attracted significant and increasing interest since the late 1990s (see, e.g., Bygate, 2001; Gass et al., 1999; Rogers, 2022). Within this body of research, distinctions are made between several ways of conducting repetition (Rogers, 2022):

• “exact task repetition” and “procedural (or task type) repetition” (the latter involving the same goal or functional language use but different content) (p. 454);
• “massed practice” (e.g., in the same lesson) vs. “spaced” or “distributed practice” (e.g., over several lessons, weeks or months) (p. 457);
• “blocked” (repeating the task immediately) vs. “interleaved” (doing something else between repetitions) tasks (p. 458).

According to this classification, TTT would likely constitute an example of massed (if only twice), interleaved (with form focus) use of either exact or procedural task repetition. Rogers (2022) reports that research evidence offers mixed findings for the efficacy of each of the above variables (e.g., the use of massed vs spaced practice, blocked vs interleaved tasks, etc.), with none of these choices proving to be universally advantageous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the efficacy of each seems to depend on numerous factors, including context, task type, purpose, focus, study design and what outcome variables (i.e., evidence of learning/impact) are measured and how. Both Rogers (pp. 455-456) and Skehan (2018) discuss the possibility that task repetition may serve a useful priming function, both to improve performance and to facilitate learning, as suggested above:

Repetition creates the circumstance where the deeper priming that has occurred because of actual use can be exploited. The key is that there is greater depth (and therefore greater memorability) of activation that takes place during the first performance (Skehan, 2018, pp. 98-99).

However, Rogers’ review article doesn’t discuss studies in which form-focused instruction occurs between task performances à la TTT, for which a small number of studies do exist, most notably Hawkes (2012; also Khezrlou, 2019; Van de Guchte et al., 2016). While Hawkes (2012) does not mention TTT, the lessons in his study clearly adopt a TTT framework that includes two meaning-focused tasks with both consciousness-raising and practice activities between them:

Pre-task > Main task > Form focus > Repeat performance

(adapted from Figure 1 in Hawkes, 2012, p. 330)

Hawkes compares how frequently learners engage in self- and peer-correction as a potential means to assess the extent to which their awareness and use of appropriate forms while focusing on meaning-focused interaction increases in the second task iteration relative to the first. His qualitative and quantitative analysis does indeed find evidence of such an increase, offering potential justification for the TTT framework. Van de Guchte et al.’s (2016) experimental study also involves a task-teach-task design, although the cycle takes place over a number of weeks, rather than in a single lesson. They find statistically significant improvements for the experimental group over the control group on two of four outcome measures, albeit those that draw more on explicit knowledge (written accuracy and metalinguistic knowledge; no difference for oral accuracy or fluency). This also suggests the potential utility of TTT as a longer-term, curricular framework. In summary, both studies offer promising findings for TTT, although (and I hate saying this for a field that is somewhat research-spoilt) more research is required.

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges that TBLT has faced as an approach over the last 30 years relates to practitioner engagement, acceptance and appropriate use of TBLT in day-to-day practice (see, e.g., Bruton, 2005; Carless, 2003; Plews and Zhao, 2010, among others), even leading to its abandonment in some curricular contexts. For example, educational authorities in China have recently moved away from its inclusion in national curricular frameworks (see Wang & Luo, 2019). As such, it is notable that TTT has gained currency­­ among practitioner communities as a reasonably straightforward and sufficiently intuitive framework for the implementation of TBLT. As a number of authorities have cautioned (e.g., Littlewood, 2014; Prabhu, 1990; Widdowson, 2003), without this “sense of plausibility” (Prabhu, 1990, p. 173), teachers are understandably reluctant to implement something that may seem counterintuitive to them, their learners and other stakeholders (e.g., as an “upside down” version of more traditional lesson structures; Willis, 1996a, p. 61). It is therefore somewhat ironic that TTT, as a plausible model for TBLT, seems to have been largely ignored by the academic TBLT community; further evidence, perhaps, of the divide between academics and practitioners in educational linguistics (see Anderson, 2023; Rose, 2019; Sato & Loewen, 2022). Yet, TTT, as a framework widely introduced on certification courses, offers a potential “bridge” to scaffold this divide that TBLT scholars may be interested in exploring in future studies and attempts at practitioner engagement.

Concluding thoughts and invitation for responses

This blog post has charted the history of test-teach-test as a lesson planning framework, documenting a surprising journey from its origins in the work of Henry C. Morrison in US mainstream education nearly a hundred years ago to its current popularity as a framework for communicative language teaching. Along the way, the testing phases have transformed from more traditional, declarative knowledge tests of spelling or other aspects of literacy to learner-centred, meaning-focused, performance-based tasks. If he were here today, I doubt that Morrison would recognise his framework in current uses of it. Nonetheless, he would likely be pleased to see that it has lasted so long. It has done so, perhaps, because of its innovative, formative, assessment for learning focus, which Morrison identified long before formative assessment itself was either coined (Scriven, 1967) or identified as instrumental to effective learning (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 1998). 

A number of questions nonetheless remain open, particularly the mystery of how, when and where it seems to have become a common component of short certificate courses in ELT, from where it seems to have gained currency among practitioner communities. Also the interesting question of its relationship to current task repetition research – I suspect that there are other studies in the extensive TBLT literature that I did not find which shed further light onto its utility and efficacy. As such, I invite comments, reflections, recollections and critique below, and hope to incorporate and credit any contributions of importance if they shed light onto areas of relevance for this account.

Notes

1. PPP stands for Presentation, Practice, Production (Byrne, 1976).
2. ESA stands for Engage, Study, Activate (Harmer, 1998).
3. CAP stands for Context, Analysis, Practice (Anderson, 2017b).
4. ARC stands for Authentic Use, Restricted Use, Clarification and Focus (Scrivener, 1994).
5. TTT can stand for both Test, Teach, Test or Teacher Talking Time in language teacher education; the latter is frequently contrasted with Student Talking Time.
6. RSA stands for Royal Society of Arts; the body that awarded the predecessors to the Cambridge CELTA and DELTA qualifications.

Acknowledgements

The Warwick ELT archive provided invaluable access to relevant documents; the archive is open to all and any ELT researchers, whether practitioners or academics. Many thanks to Richard Smith for feedback on an earlier draft version, and to Judie Hudson, Jim Scrivener, Scott Thornbury, Adrian Underhill and Jane Willis for sharing their experiences and personal testimony.

References

Anderson, J. (2016). Why practice makes perfect sense: The past, present and future potential of the PPP paradigm in language teacher education. English Language Teaching Education and Development, 19(1), 14-22. http://www.elted.net/uploads/7/3/1/6/7316005/3_vol.19_anderson.pdf

Anderson, J. (2017a). A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal. ELT Journal, 71(2), 218-227. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw055

Anderson, J. (2017b). Trinity CertTESOL Companion: A Guide for English Language Teachers. Delta Publishing/Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Anderson, J. (2023). Reimagining educational linguistics: A post-competence perspective. Educational Linguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/eduling-2023-0009

Apen, R. (2016). The applicative use of problem solving technique in teaching grammar. Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang, 4(2), 180-187.

Axelrod, J., & Bigelow, D. N. (1962). A report on an inventory of the language and area centers supported by the National Defense Education Act of 1958. American Council on Education.

Barton, K. (2005). Mary G. Kelty: The most important social educator no one has heard of? In S. L. Field (Ed.), Explorations in curriculum history (pp. 161-184). Information Age Publishing.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Bloom, B. S. (1973). Recent developments in mastery learning. Educational Psychologist, 10(2), 53-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527309529091

Bolen, J. (2022). What is the test teach test approach to teaching ESL/EFL? Teaching and learning English with Jackie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utzV9zAvXJk

Bowen, T. (2002). Teaching approaches: the communicative classroom One Stop English. https://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology-the-world-of-elt/teaching-approaches-the-communicative-classroom/146489.article

British Council. (n.d.) Test teach test. Teaching English. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/professional-development/teachers/knowing-subject/t-w/test-teach-test

Brooks, N. (1975). The meaning of audiolingual. The Modern Language Journal, 59(5/6), 234-240. https://www.jstor.org/stable/324304

Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? The Language Learning Journal, 31(1), 55-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571730585200091 

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Pearson Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267

Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31(4), 485-500.

Causey, O. S. (1955). Some procedures in developmental reading in college. In O. S. Causey (Ed.), What the colleges are doing in planning and improving college reading programs; selections from the first, second and third yearbooks of the southwest reading conference for colleges and universities (pp. 53-59). Texas Christian University Press.

Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102

Golub, L. S., Fredrick, W. C., & Barganz, R. A. (1971). Present and proposed needs, objectives and components of a language learning program (Theoretical Paper No. 29). Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.

Gower, R., Philips, D., & Walters, S. (2005). Teaching practice: A handbook for teachers in training. Macmillan.

Hadfield, J., & Hadfield, C. (2008). Introduction to teaching English. Oxford University Press.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English (New edition). Pearson.

Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr059

Hunsdon, J. (2015, June 22). Task-based instruction. Task-teach-task lesson plan template. TESOL International Association. https://www.tesol.org/resource-center/task-based-instruction-task-teach-task-lesson-plan-template/

Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Bryant, B. (1973). Cooperation and competition in the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 74(3), 172-181. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1000840

Kester, E. S., Peña, E. D., & Gillam, R. B. (2001). Outcomes of dynamic assessment with culturally and linguistically diverse students: A comparison of three teaching methods within a test-teach-retest framework. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 2(1), 42-59.

Khezrlou, S. Task Repetition and Corrective Feedback: The Role of Feedback Types and Structure Saliency. English Teaching & Learning, 43, 213–233 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00025-2

Klumb, R., & Otto, W. (1976). Developing an essential reading skills program for post-elementary students.  (pp. 99-104). In P. D. Pearson, J. Hansen (Eds.), Reading: Theory, research and practice. Twenty-sixth yearbook of the national reading conference. National Reading Conference, Inc.

Laurie, A., & Pesco, D. (2023). Curriculum-based dynamic assessment of narratives for bilingual Filipino children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 54(2), 489-503. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-22-00117

Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching, 47(3), 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000134

Missiuna, C., & Samuels, M. T. (1989). Dynamic assessment of preschool children with special needs: Comparison of mediation and instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 53-60.

Morrison, H. C. (1926/1931). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. University of Chicago Press [Revised Edition (1931) is cited above].

Nash, R. T. (2008). Test-teach-test paradigm. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and other Exceptional Individuals (pp. 2003-2004). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470373699.speced2084

Palfreyman, D. (1993). ‘How I got it in my head’: Conceptual models of language and learning in native and non‐native trainee EFL teachers. Language Awareness, 2(4), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1993.9959835

Plews, J. L., & Zhao, K. (2010). Tinkering with tasks knows no bounds: ESL teachers’ adaptations of task-based language-teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 28(1), 41-59.

Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586897

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3^rd Edition).Pearson Education.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4^th Edition).Pearson Education.

Rogers, J. (2022). Spacing effects in task repetition research: Conceptual review article. Language Learning, 73(2), 445-474. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12526

Rose, H. (2019). Dismantling the ivory tower in TESOL: A renewed call for teaching-informed research. TESOL Quarterly 53(3), 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.517

Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2022). The research-practice dialogue in second language learning and teaching: Past, present and future. Modern Language Journal, 106(3), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12791

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation (Publication #110). Social Science Education Consortium.

Scrivener, J. (1994). PPP & after. The Teacher Trainer, 8(1), 15-16.

Senour, A. C. (1930). An investigation of the effectiveness of the test-teach-test method of instruction in spelling. The Elementary School Journal, 30(9), 700-706.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/995879

Shaughnessy, M. F., Siegel, J., Stanley, N. V. (1994). Gifted and reading. Information Analyses.

Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629766

Stevick, E. W. (1976). Memory, Meaning and Method: Some Psychological Perspectives on Language Learning. Newbury House.

Streiff, P., & Estrada, B. (1962). Good pronunciation (and) daily log for teaching English as a second language using the audio-lingual method. Arizona State Dept. of Public Instruction.

Thornbury, S. (1999). Lesson art and design. ELT Journal, 53(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.1.4

Thornbury, S. (2011). P is for PPP. An A-Z of ELT. https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/p-is-for-ppp/

Thornbury, S. (2017) The new A-Z of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts used in English language teaching. Macmillan.

Tressler, J. C. (1945). The why and how of practice. The English Journal, 34(5), 247-252. https://www.jstor.org/stable/807609

Tyerman, M. J. (1986). Gifted children and their identification: Learning ability not intelligence. Gifted Education International, 4(2), 81-84.

Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 300-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609616

Vitta, J. P. (2016). The case for a task-teach-task (TTT) approach in the Japanese university EFL speaking context. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 4(6), 78-81.

Wang, Q., & Luo, S. (2019). Shifting from teaching the subject to developing core competencies through the subject: The revised senior middle school English curriculum standards (2017 edition) in China. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 109–134). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_6-1

Weller, D. (2022, May 14). What is ‘test, teach, test’? Barefoot TEFL Teacher. https://www.barefootteflteacher.com/p/what-is-test-teach-test

Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Willis, J. (1996a). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62). Macmillan Heinemann.

Willis, J. (1996b). A framework for task-based learning. Longman.

Woodward, T. (2001). Planning lessons and courses. Cambridge University Press.

Wurtz, R. G., Sewell, T., & Manni, J. L. (1985). The relationship of estimated learning potential to performance on a learning task and achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 22(3), 293-302.

Young, P. K. (1966). Principles and practices in the teaching of spelling [Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Illinois University]. The Keep. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/plan_b/406