The Three Grammar Frameworks:
TTT, Situational, Text-Based
“Three ways to teach the same grammar point. Choosing the right one changes everything — for your students and for you.”
Why Three Frameworks — Not One?
Many teachers — especially those trained with a single coursebook — operate with an implicit assumption: you explain grammar, students do exercises. This is not a framework. It is a habit. And it works poorly for most language items, with most student profiles, in most learning contexts.
The three frameworks in this lesson represent three fundamentally different answers to the question: how should students first encounter new language? Each rests on different assumptions about how language is learned, what prior knowledge students bring, and what kind of processing produces durable acquisition.
The question is not “which framework is best?” The question is always: “which framework is best for this item, with these students, at this moment?”
Test · Teach · Test
Students attempt to use the language before it is taught. The teacher diagnoses errors and gaps. Then the language is focused on. Then students try again with better preparation.
Situational Presentation
Teacher establishes a context (a story, a situation, a picture) and elicits or presents the target language from it. Language focus (MFP) follows. Then controlled practice. Then freer.
Text-Based Presentation
Students read or listen to an authentic or near-authentic text. They complete comprehension tasks. The teacher highlights the target language from the text. Language focus. Then practice.
Framework 1 — Test · Teach · Test
The TTT framework inverts the traditional sequence. Instead of explaining before practising, you have students practise first — and use what they produce to direct your teaching. This is more student-centred, more diagnostic, and avoids teaching things students already know.
Before the initial test, students need a communicative context that will prompt them to want to use the target language — even imperfectly. This is not optional: without context, the diagnostic task produces no evidence about the language gap.
Example (2nd conditional): “Look at these pictures of lottery winners. What would you do if you won a million pounds?” Students discuss. The teacher listens, notes what they produce.
Teacher notes: “Some students said ‘If I will win’ — clear gap in conditional form. Others said ‘I would buy’ correctly. The teach phase should target form over meaning.”The Test 1 task must be genuinely communicative — a role play, a discussion task, a writing prompt, an information gap. The teacher monitors closely, takes notes on errors and gaps, but does not interrupt or correct during the task. Correcting now would invalidate the diagnostic data.
Critical distinction: Test 1 is NOT a formal test. It is an elicitation device. Students should feel this is a normal communicative activity, not an assessment. Anxiety produces avoidance — students who feel tested will avoid the target language.
Teacher role during Test 1: Monitor silently. Note exact student utterances. Identify the most common error pattern. This becomes the focus of the Teach phase.
Students produce: “If I will win…” / “If I won, I would buying…” / “If I win, I buy…” — The teacher notes three distinct error types and decides which to prioritise.The Teach phase is the MFP presentation from Day 8, but targeted precisely at the gaps revealed in Test 1. If students understood meaning but had form errors, spend more time on form. If pronunciation was the main issue, prioritise drilling.
Important: Write student errors on the board — anonymously (“I heard someone say…”). This makes the error visible without embarrassing anyone, and turns the diagnostic data into a teaching moment.
Sequence: Present the target sentence → establish meaning (CCQs) → analyse form (board layout from Day 7) → drill pronunciation → provide a brief written reference (form notes for students to keep).
Teacher writes on board: “If I _____ (win), I would _____ (buy) a house.” Elicits the correct form. “What verb form do we use after ‘if’? Past simple — ‘won.’ What about the result clause? ‘Would + base form.’ Let’s drill: won → I won → if I won → if I won, I would…”A short, targeted controlled practice activity — gap-fill, sentence transformation, or error correction — focused exactly on the error pattern observed in Test 1. This consolidates the form before the freer Test 2.
Duration: 3–5 minutes maximum. The goal is consolidation of the form, not extensive controlled practice. The main communicative work happens in Test 2.
Test 2 is a communicative task — similar to Test 1, but with a different context or partner, or an extended version of the original prompt. Students now have the MFP knowledge to perform more accurately.
Do not repeat Test 1 exactly: Repetition without novelty produces mechanical repetition, not language use. Change the content: different hypothetical scenario, different partners, or a written version of the original spoken task.
Evaluation: Compare student production in Test 2 to Test 1. Improvement in accuracy is your evidence that the Teach phase was effective. Note any remaining errors for future lessons.
New prompt: “Your partner has just inherited a house. In pairs, discuss: what would you do if you were in their situation?” Students now produce second conditional forms with greater accuracy.Framework 2 — Situational Presentation
The teacher creates or presents a situation — through a story, a picture, a scenario, a video clip, a question — that makes students curious and engaged, and that will naturally require the target language to discuss or resolve.
Good contexts are: relatable (students can imagine themselves in them), visually supported where possible, emotionally engaging, and simple enough to be grasped in under 90 seconds.
Example (2nd conditional): Teacher shows a picture of a deserted tropical island. “Imagine you are stranded here with only one other person. Who would you choose and why?” Students discuss. Teacher doesn’t introduce the language yet — just gets them thinking in the conceptual territory.The teacher either elicits the target language from students (“What could we say here?”) or models it clearly in the context of the established situation. Elicitation is preferred — it engages students actively and reveals what they already know.
Elicitation vs presentation: If students can approximate the target language, elicit. If the language is completely new to them, present it clearly in the context sentence. Do not waste time eliciting what students cannot produce.
Teacher: “What would you say? ‘If I were stranded on an island…’ — can anyone complete this?” (Elicitation) → Student: “If I were stranded, I would choose a doctor.” Teacher: “Excellent. If I were stranded, I would choose a doctor.” (Repetition, confirmation, model.)The complete MFP analysis — as studied in Day 8 — applied to the target language item. This is the “teach” moment of the situational framework. Students understand the meaning from the context (Stage 1–2); Stage 3 makes the form and pronunciation explicit.
Meaning check: Even though context has conveyed meaning, CCQs are still required. “Is this situation real? Am I actually stranded? Am I speculating about what would happen?” → NO / NO / YES.
Form on board: If + past simple, + would + bare infinitive. Highlight the past simple in the if-clause (not future). Note: “were” for all persons in formal/written English.
Pronunciation: Contraction “I’d” = /aɪd/. Weak form of “would” in natural speech. Drill sequence: stranded → I were stranded → If I were stranded → If I were stranded, I’d choose…
Students practise the form in a structured way: gap-fill exercises, sentence transformation, substitution drills, or guided speaking prompts. The goal is form accuracy before fluency. Students cannot self-correct during freer practice if they have not first consolidated the form.
Types of controlled practice for grammar: Gap-fill (if I _____ (have) enough money, I _____ (buy) a house) · Sentence transformation (convert simple past → 2nd conditional) · Error correction (identify and fix 6 sentences) · Personalised sentences (“Write 3 true 2nd conditional sentences about your own life”).
A communicative task in which the target language emerges naturally — discussion, role play, information gap, survey, ranking task. The focus shifts from accuracy to communication. Students are expected to use the target language but are not drilled into it.
Language support: During freer practice, the target language should still be visible (on the board or a handout) so students can self-refer. Removing the reference too early increases cognitive load and reduces the quality of communication.
Freer practice prompt: “Think of 3 ways your life would be different if you hadn’t chosen your current career. Discuss with a partner.” Target language available on board. Teacher monitors and notes errors for delayed correction.Framework 3 — Text-Based Presentation
A brief activity — 2–4 minutes — that engages students with the topic of the text before they read or listen. A question, a prediction task, a brief discussion, a related image. The lead-in prepares the schema that makes the text comprehensible and activates vocabulary.
For a text about career regrets (target language: “wish + past perfect”): “Think of one decision in your life that you sometimes wish you had made differently. Tell a partner in one sentence.” Students discuss briefly — the teacher does not introduce the target language yet.Pre-teach only vocabulary items that would block comprehension of the gist or detail tasks. Do NOT pre-teach the target grammar structure — that is the point of the lesson. Pre-teach only the lexis that would otherwise derail the reading/listening.
Rule of three: Pre-teach a maximum of 3–4 words. More than this creates a vocabulary lesson rather than a grammar lesson, and students experience cognitive overload before reading the text.
Method: Present each word using the situational or contextual approach — brief MFP notes on the board. No more than 60–90 seconds per word.
Set one gist question before students see the text. One question only — too many questions on first reading creates a detail task, not a gist task. The gist question should be answerable after reading the entire text once at normal speed.
Good gist questions: “Is the speaker happy or regretful about her decision?” / “What is the main point of this article?” / “Is the author for or against working from home?”
Timing: Set a time limit. If reading, give 2 minutes for a 200-word text. If listening, play the audio once. Do not stop. Do not help. Students must attempt the gist task independently — this builds real processing skills.
Students read or listen again with 4–6 specific comprehension questions. The purpose is twofold: deeper engagement with the text’s content, and exposure to the target language in context again before it is highlighted. Compare answers in pairs, then whole-class feedback.
The pivotal moment of the text-based framework. The teacher directs attention to specific sentences in the text that contain the target language. “Look at paragraph 2, line 4. What do you notice about the verb form here?”
Inductive approach: Ask students to find or identify the target structure before explaining it. “How many times does this structure appear in the text? Underline them all.” Students discover the pattern before the teacher analyses it.
Students underline: “I wish I hadn’t accepted the job” / “She wishes she had started earlier” / “He sometimes wishes he hadn’t moved abroad.” Teacher: “What do all these sentences have in common? What tense follows ‘wish’? What does it mean?”The full MFP analysis — using the text sentences as the starting point. Students have already encountered the language in authentic context; the MFP stage makes it explicit. CCQs, form on board, pronunciation drill — all as in Day 8, but anchored in real text.
Advantage over situational presentation: The text provides multiple authentic examples in context. Students don’t just see one teacher-constructed example — they see the structure used naturally, multiple times, in varying contexts within the same text. This provides richer input and accelerates noticing.
As in the situational framework — controlled practice (accuracy-focused) followed by freer practice (fluency-focused). The text often provides the prompt for freer practice: “Write about a decision you wish you had made differently,” echoing the text topic.
Side-by-Side — The Same Grammar Point, Three Frameworks
Target language: Second Conditional (“If I had enough money, I would buy a house.”). Level: B1. Below is how each framework approaches the same lesson. Click a stage within each framework to see the classroom reality — the script, the timing, and the teacher decisions.
Teacher shows image of a lottery ticket. “Imagine you’ve just won £5 million. Tell your partner what you would do.” Students discuss freely — teacher monitors without correcting, noting errors.
Teacher note: Most students produce “If I will win…” and “I would to buy…” — clear gaps in if-clause form and would + bare infinitive.
Teacher writes on board anonymously: “I heard someone say: If I will win…” “Is this correct? What should it be?” Elicits: won (past simple). Then: “I also heard: I would to buy…” Elicits: would buy (bare infinitive). Full MFP board layout: If + past simple, + would + bare infinitive. CCQs. Pronunciation drill.
Sentence transformation exercise: “I want to travel the world” → “If I had the money, I would travel the world.” 6 items. Students work alone, compare in pairs, whole-class feedback.
New prompt: “Your partner is moving to a different country. What would you do if you were in their situation? What would you miss? What would you change?” Students discuss with improved form accuracy.
Teacher shows image of deserted tropical island. Generates interest with questions: “Would you want to be here? Who would you want with you?” Students brainstorm briefly — no target language introduced yet.
Teacher creates a model sentence from the scenario. “What could I say? If I were stranded on this island, I would choose Malala Yousafzai.” Writes on board. Elicits variations from students. “What would you say?” → “If I were there, I would…”
Full MFP analysis on board using the context sentence. CCQs: “Am I actually stranded? (No.) Is this real? (No.) Am I imagining? (Yes.)” Form: If + past simple + would + bare infinitive. Pronunciation: /If aɪ wə ˈstrænd ɪd/ → drilling sequence.
Controlled: Gap-fill — “If I _____ (have) a superpower, I _____ (choose) invisibility.” 8 items. Then freer: “If you could change one thing about your daily life, what would it be? Discuss with a partner.”
Teacher asks: “Do you ever think about alternative versions of your life — the path not taken?” Brief class discussion. Teacher does not introduce TL. Students activate background schema about hypothetical thinking.
Pre-teach: parallel universe (a world identical to ours but with one thing changed), contemplating (thinking seriously about something), mundane (ordinary, not exciting). Method: context sentence + CCQs. No more than 3.
Text: A short article or interview (200–250 words) in which a person discusses what they would do if they lived a different life. Gist: “Is the speaker happy with their life or not?” Detail: 4 specific comprehension questions. Compare in pairs, whole class feedback.
“Find and underline all the structures in the text that begin with ‘If…’ How many can you find?” Students identify 4–5 examples. Teacher then draws attention: “What do you notice about the verb form in the if-clause? And in the result clause?” Students notice: past simple + would. Then full MFP on board.
Controlled: Students write 4 sentences about their “alternative life” using the structure. Teacher monitors for accuracy. Then freer: “Write a short paragraph (80 words) about what your life would be like if you had made one different decision.” Links back to lead-in topic.
The Framework Decision — A Diagnostic Table
| Criterion | TTT | Situational | Text-Based |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student existing knowledge | Partial knowledge — some exposure, some gaps | Brand new — no prior encounter | Some knowledge — can engage with authentic text |
| Level most suited to | Any — especially mixed ability | A1–B1 (lower and intermediate) | B1+ (intermediate and above) |
| Student learning style preference | Communicative learners who resist direct instruction | Structured learners who prefer clarity first | Autonomous, curious learners who enjoy discovery |
| Language type | Grammar and functions | Grammar, lexis, and functions | Grammar — especially complex or subtle structures |
| Teacher preparation needed | Lower — flexible, reactive teaching | Moderate — well-prepared context required | Higher — text selection and comprehension tasks needed |
| Lesson pace | Faster start — communicative task first | Steady — context → language → practice | Slower start — comprehension before language focus |
| Risk | Test 1 may produce little target language if students avoid it | Context may not land — students may not find it realistic | Students may not notice the target language without careful staging |
| Advantage | Students feel heard — teaching responds to their actual errors | Clear, predictable structure — lower anxiety | Authentic input — students see language in real use |
Interactive Decision Tool — Which Framework Should You Use?
Answer each question below. The tool will suggest a framework based on your choices.
Build Your Own Lesson — Framework Planner
Choose a framework tab. Fill in each stage for the target language item given. This is a CELTA-standard lesson planning exercise — write as if this plan will be observed and evaluated.
Target language: Comparatives and superlatives (“bigger than” / “the biggest”) · Level: A2
Plan a TTT lesson for comparatives at A2. For each stage, describe what you will do — the task, the instructions, and what you expect students to produce.
Test 1: Show 5 pictures of different cities (London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Sydney). Task: “Which city is the most exciting? Which is the most expensive? Discuss in pairs.” Students attempt comparisons — likely producing “London is more better” / “Tokyo is more big” / “New York is expensive than Paris.” Teacher notes: double comparative, wrong comparative form, missing “than.”
Teach: Anonymously write errors on board. Elicit corrections. Full form: short adjective + -er + than (bigger than, taller than); long adjective: more + adjective + than (more expensive than). Superlative: the + adj + -est / the most + adj. Irregulars: good/better/best, bad/worse/worst. CCQs: “Am I comparing one thing to another? (comparatives). Am I comparing one thing to all others? (superlative).” Drill: big — bigger — the biggest.
Controlled practice: Gap-fill: “London is _____ (big) than Paris.” “Mount Everest is _____ (high) mountain in the world.” 8 items. Answer key comparison in pairs.
Test 2: New prompt: “Your partner is choosing between three flats — they have different sizes, prices, and distances from work. Help them decide using comparatives and superlatives.” Student A has information about the flats, Student B asks questions. Role play.
Plan a Situational Presentation lesson for comparatives at A2. Design a context that makes comparatives feel necessary and natural.
Lead-in: Teacher draws two stick figures on board — Alex and Sam. “Alex is 180cm. Sam is 165cm. Who is taller?” Gets “Alex.” Writes: “Alex is taller than Sam.” Then adds: “Alex earns €2,000/month. Sam earns €3,500/month. Who is richer?” Gets “Sam.” Writes: “Sam is richer than Alex.” Simple, visual, immediately clear.
Elicitation: Adds a third character — Jamie, 190cm, earns €5,000. “Can anyone tell me about Jamie compared to Alex and Sam?” Elicits comparative sentences. Confirms and writes on board. Then: “Who is the tallest of all three?” → Elicits superlative form.
MFP: Board layout: short adj (tall → taller → the tallest) · long adj (expensive → more expensive → the most expensive) · irregular (good → better → the best). CCQs: “Am I comparing two things or one to all? (comparatives: two; superlatives: one vs all).” Drill: tall → taller → the tallest — back-chain for “expensive.”
Controlled: Gap-fill with Alex/Sam/Jamie information — 8 comparison sentences. Students work alone, compare in pairs.
Freer: “Compare two cities you know — write 5 sentences using comparatives and superlatives.” Display on board at end for peer reading.
Plan a Text-Based lesson for comparatives at A2. Design or select a text in which comparative structures appear naturally. (Note: at A2, ensure the text is simple enough.)
Lead-in: “Would you prefer to live in the city or the countryside? Why?” Brief pair discussion. 2 minutes.
Pre-teach: (1) affordable = not too expensive, reasonable price — CCQ: Is something affordable cheap or just reasonably priced? (reasonably priced). (2) commute = travel from home to work every day. (3) densely populated = a lot of people in a small area — CCQ: Is a densely populated area crowded or empty? (crowded).
Text: A short (150-word) factual comparison of city living vs countryside living — written specifically for A2 level. Contains: “Cities are more expensive than villages.” / “The countryside is quieter than the city.” / “Cities have more job opportunities.” / “Rural areas are cleaner and less polluted.” Gist: “Is the text for or against city living?” (balanced). Detail: 4 true/false questions.
Highlight TL: “Underline every sentence that compares two things. How many did you find?” (7). “What word comes between the two things being compared?” (than). “What is special about the adjective form before ‘than’?” Elicit: -er ending / more + adj. Full MFP on board from text examples.
Reference Sources — Direct Links
Cambridge ELT Blog — TTT Grammar Teaching
Cambridge’s explanation of the Test-Teach-Test framework with classroom examples.
Cambridge: TTT explained ↗Focus on Grammar from Reading — Cambridge Blog
How to use reading texts as the foundation for grammar teaching — the text-based approach in practice.
Cambridge: Grammar from reading ↗TeachingEnglish — Grammar Teaching Approaches
British Council’s guide to different approaches to grammar teaching — including inductive and deductive frameworks.
TeachingEnglish: Grammar Teaching ↗LearnEnglish Grammar Practice Hub
British Council’s grammar exercises by level — use to design controlled practice activities for any framework.
LearnEnglish: Grammar exercises ↗Oxford Grammar Reference — All Structures
Oxford’s complete grammar reference — form notes, restrictions, examples. Use when planning the MFP analysis stage of any framework.
Oxford Grammar Reference ↗