Pica, T.  (1994).  Questions from the language classroom:  Research perspectives.  TESOL Quarterly, 28.  pp.49-79.

3. Should students drill and practice new forms and structures?
 

• Influenced by Krashen and Terrell’s Natural Approach (1983), the emphasis on communicative methodology in language teaching have brought about a shift away from the use of drill and practice in the classroom.  Some researchers argued that noncontextualized language is processed in a different part of the brain from meaningful communication.

 
• More recent cognitive approaches to learning, especially those based on language processing theory have stressed the importance of automaticity and the integration of what were previously considered quantifiable skills.

 
• Attention is seen as a key factor, but further research is needed to determine exactly how drill and practice fit into the learning process.

 
• Swain’s 1985 study showed that while comprehensible input was necessary but not sufficient for language development, drill and practice had less of an effect when it was not provided in a meaningful context.

 
• A further interesting phenomenon that has yet to be explored is the role that students' output in drills may also functions as input and how this input contributes to acquisition.

 

 

References
Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.

Swain, M.  (1985).  Communicative competence:  Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.  In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256).  Rowley, MA:  Newbury House.

Return to SLA Theory and Practice  ->  Language and Literacy  ->  LAU top