TO
DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL: IS IT NOT A MATTER OF PURPOSE?
EFL
teacher Bruno Coriolano
Straight to the point: I do think that drills have a place in the
teaching of English for speakers of other languages (TESOL) classes. Why is
that? It is dead simple: I do not believe there is a perfect method that could
be used in order to teach our students and because of that, I believe that
teachers may (and should) use a variety of techniques in order to do so. Drills
(why not?) could be used for different purposes in our classes, and in
different moments.
It is important to say that I am not stating here that
drills have to be there, in all lessons, all the time. Otherwise, classes would
become a real burden for both teachers and learners. So I wholeheartedly agree
with those who constantly remind us that drills might be ‘boring’ if overused.
However, we should constantly remember ourselves that anything – a lesson, an
activity, tasks, and the like – overused during one’s classes may cause, among
other things, boredom. It is undoubtedly the case of overdrilling (Harmer,
2011).
It seems interesting to
mention that Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT) arose when
language teaching around the world was ready for (and in need of) a paradigm
shift. That is, language teaching was no longer expected to be taught through
the Audiolingualism perspective, for instance (Richards and Rogers, 2011).
Needless to say, drills were (are) strongly associated to this particular
method and they have been used for repetition, inflection, replacement,
restatement, completion, transposition, expansion, contraction, transformation,
integration, rejoinder, and restoration (for more details, please read Richards
and Rogers, 2011, pp. 60-62).
In CLT, language input should be authentic as well as
provide learners with opportunities “to listen to language as it is used in
authentic communication” (Larsen-Freeman 2010, p. 128). Such paradigm shift in
language teaching may have created the drill-and-kill kind of thought.
Knowing that language is supposed to be used (and
taught) as communicatively authentic as possible within a CLT perspective
(Almeida Filho, 1993), drills, as it seems, have been seen as a real villain in
academia, for instance. I cannot deny that language teaching has changed the
emphasis from drill-like, say, techniques to “communicative activities [and
tasks] based on meaningful interaction which, if successful, direct learners’
attention away from language form and towards the messages they want to
communicate” (Seidlhofer, 2001, p. 57).
I hold the opinion that (language) teaching should not
follow any particular orthodox method. On the contrary, we should bear in mind
that we are in the so-called Postmethod Era (Brown, 2007). Moreover, teachers,
in TESOL contexts nowadays, have opportunities to make choices about their own
practices regarding English language teaching. Hence, teachers may make use of
appropriate instruments in order to provide leaners with meaningful learning.
Furthermore, teachers should take learners’ needs and interests into account
while preparing their lessons. After all, the diversification of methodological
options has also brought a diversification of learning goals.
Considering this scenario, I still insist on this
debate: Isn’t the use of drills a matter of purpose(s)? If the teacher has a
clear purpose (or objective) in mind, shouldn’t he/she consider using drills in
his/her lesson?
HOW
COULD DRILLS BE USED? WHY (NOT) USE THEM AFTER ALL?
EFL
teacher Bruno Coriolano
