Drill and Kill?

Michael Bush
Associate Professor of French and
Instructional Psychology and Technology
Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

Response to comments on the CALICO List
7 October 1999

Return to Multimedia and Digital Commentary Online

Drill and kill in its purest essence is a throwback to behaviorist theories of learning psychology, from a time when meaning played a secondary role to form. Because drills have traditionally focused on form, not only are they boring but they most often drown out the attention to meaning that gives us the ability to understand when someone speaks to us.  Sure accuracy is important, but using drills to create memory associations in our minds based mostly on form will not do much to help us communicate. Writing might well improve, but writing is only one of four skills, and one of those four is listening, the skill that research shows accounts of about 45% of what we do with language. How much sense does it make for us to focus a whole lot of emotional and cognitive energy on an activity that affects language in such a peripheral way?

On the other hand, is it possible to create drills that attend to meaning?   Absolutely! It is not only possible, but success in that venture can make the language learning process more meaningful.  With meaning comes relevance.  With relevance comes motivation.  When learners are challenged to communicate their own meaning in the right way, then not only can we get them to attend to form, but we can also make the language learning experience much more enjoyable. Sure, form is important, but we have to connect it to meaning, the essence of communication itself.  Some of the best work in this area has been done by Bill Van Patten (1993, 1996). Check it out!

Do you agree?  Disagree?  Post your comments below!!

References

Syverson, M. A & Slatin, J. (1997) Evaluating Learning in Virtual Environments.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-44.


Your Name:

Comments:

*


Testing...
Mike
- Thu Oct 7 22:06:59 MDT 1999
I agree with you Mike, but I suggest you expand the second paragraph a little. Perhaps we can assume the reader is familiar with the old-style drills referred to in the first paragraph, but how many will understand what "drills that attend to meaning" are about. Give us an example or two, please, with a little commentary on what makes these drills different and superior. Derek
Derek Roff [email protected]
- Fri Oct 8 09:15:32 MDT 1999
Mike:

Of course some of this discussion depends on a definition of 'drill and practice'--which need not be quite so behavioralistic as the old programmed instruction made it. And it's true that creating and apprehending meaning is what language learning is all about, so we ought to be sure that our activities support that.

When conventional fill-in-the-blanks and so forth are written with some imagination or humor and are meaning-connected, students do not seem to find them boring!

And yet...that repetition does, I believe, help students firmly ensconce the forms in their brains--and they say so too.


Cheers,

Ruth

......................................

Ruth H. Sanders
Professor of German
Miami University

Ruth Sanders
- Fri Oct 8 15:33:56 MDT 1999
I finally got around to reading your comments on drill and kill. Absolutely, language learning has to be meaningful and communicative, otherwise there is not point to it. Worse, using anything other than a student centered approach (where students generate meaning) is boring, at least to me, so I can't see where it can be better for students I teach. I've linked to your page from mine at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/4631/onlinejo.htm Cheers, Vance
Vance Stevens
- Mon Nov 1 00:36:17 MST 1999
More testing...
Mike
- Thu 02/08/2001 11:20p
Testing...
Mike
- Thu 08/31/2006 02:01 PM