Our in-class task this week was to create a poster in groups about a specific topic related to the VCT-unit “Learning Theories & Principles”. I found the poster about  “drill & practise”-software not only very creative and concise, but it also reflects my own opinion concerning this issue. The questions the group was asked to consider were:

 “Why is drill & practice software still distributed? Do you think it is useful?“.

First of all, I think that the answer to the second question is already implied in the first question: If “drill and practice”-software was completely outdated and of no use at all, people wouldn’t buy it and if people didn’t buy it, software engineers wouldn’t produce it anymore…

But why is “drill and practice” software still useful?

Analyzing the poster one can conclude that understanding is indeed not supported by “drill & practice”-software. As grammar or math cannot simply be learned by heart, but needs to be understood, “drill and practice”-methods are not suitable for those learning matters. Nevertheless, learning by heart is fostered by “drill and practice”-activities, and as suggested by the poster, it is useful for the acquisition of vocabulary, history dates, or anatomy terms. The poster states that “drill and practice”-software is still produced and used because it is a way to learn facts quickly and effectively, and because it is very convenient for the teacher as he/she doesn’t have to prepare much.

Moreover, one could add that the teacher has a greater control over what the students are learning compared to explorative learning. Teachers use “drill and practice”-software to monitor what is learned and make sure every student learns the same things at the same time (although, of course, no students really learn exactly the same at the same time…).

The discussion about the usefulness of “drill and practice”-software is also linked to the question whether skills or knowledge are more essential nowadays. In explorative learning the acquisition of skills is emphasized, which is why supporters of the “drill and practice”-method argue that the acquisition of actual facts degrades to a “side-effect” in explorative learning. That is not to say that there are no facts learned in the explorative way, but while this learning theory is more a skill-based approach, “drill and practice” can be described as a fact-based learning approach.

As I already explained in my last post, I would not want to decide in favor of one theory and against another, just as I would not want to decide for or against acquiring skills and learning facts. Personally, I think that we need a good balance of the different approaches in our schools. We certainly want our students to be fit in the use of computers and social interaction, but mustn’t forget that they will remain ignorant if they don’t learn facts, as well. After all, what use are methodological, scientific and social skills, if you think Africa is a country and South Africa is just a part of this country ?

As a conclusion, it can be argued that the quickness and effectiveness to learn facts by heart, the convenience and control for the teacher and the importance of a general knowledge are reasons why “drill and practice”-software is still distributed today. Despite those advantages over other learning activities, “drill and practice” should never be the only method of teaching.