|
SOME TYPES OF ORAL STRUCTURE DRILLS |
|
|
Language Learning, XVII, 3/4, 155-164 |
|
The
aim of a structure drill is for the learner to produce a number of utterances
consisting of the same grammatical structure. A drill has two parts: the input
(what is supplied to the learner); and the output (what the learner has to
produce himself). There are two methods of describing drills: by considering
the relationship of each input/output pair; by considering the relationship of
successive outputs. The latter method seems preferable. Contextualisation
plays a part in drills and four degrees can be recognised: I.
noncontextualised;
II
semi-contextualised;
III.
contextualised;
IV.
situational.
To aid contextualisation, drills may have frames—settings for the input or
output unconnected with the particular structure being taught. Four operations
are possible in a drill: A. Substitution, in which the outputs vary a master
output by substituting items in various ways; B. Mutation, in which the output
changes the structure of the input; C. Repetition; D. Addition, in which the
successive outputs are added together.
This
article does not set out to evaluate the usefulness of the types of structure
drill but solely to describe them. The present scheme was worked out to
account for drills in English; there seems no reason why it cannot be adapted
for use with other languages.
The
question of medium will not be considered at length. Unless otherwise
indicated, these are purely oral drills in which the learner hears something
spoken and responds orally. For a classification of the ways in which the
different media of reading, writing, vision, and gesture can be combined,
readers are referred to the analysis by St. P. Kaczmarski1.
The
basic premise behind this article is that, regardless of their differing
linguistic or psychological justification, all structure drills have one
objective in common: that the learner should produce a number of utterances
consisting of the same grammatical structure. From this it follows that, in
the terms of a particular drill, there is only one "right"
grammatical answer. The information that directs the learner to produce this
right answer must, then, be given in such a way that it is unambiguous and
cannot lead to more than one answer. A drill has two parts: what the student
hears and what he has to say. The usual terms for these two parts are stimulus
and
response.
However,
these terms are associated closely with one learning theory and it seems
preferable to use more neutral terms. A convenient pair of substitutes are input
and
output
and
these terms will be used throughout this article. Input (I.P.) refers to the
information supplied to the learner, whether orally or visually; output (O.P.)
to what the learner has to produce himself.
There
are, perhaps, two basically different ways of describing drills. In the first,
one considers the grammatical or lexical relationship between the pairs of
input and output, as in the following drill2. (Like all drill
examples, this is presumed to be part of a much longer drill consisting of
examples followed by practice items.)
I.P.
Is
Bill playing tennis tonight?
O.P.
No,
he's not going to play.
I.P.
Is Susan
helping her mother this evening?
O.P.
No,
she's not going to help.
I.P.
Are
Mr. and Mrs. Green paying the bill tomorrow?
O.P
…
Here
one could say that the learner has to perform six activities:
i.
change question to statement,
ii.
make the sentence negative,
iii.
change
the present continuous to going
to,
iv.
substitute
a personal pronoun for a proper name,
v.
delete a prepositional phrase,
vi. delete the object.
In
the second approach, one considers not the input/output pairs, but the
successive outputs. The same drill consists of a master output No,
he's not going to play which
is varied at three points: No
X Y not going to Z. The
learner has to do three things:
i.
At X he selects a personal pronoun according to the sex and person of
the input.
ii.
At
Y he selects either 's,
're, or
'm
according
to his choice at X.
iii.
At
Z he inserts the verb provided in the input.
This
approach treats the output as a master sentence into which successive items
are inserted according to information selected from the input, rather than as
a process of changing the whole input into an output.
A
crucial issue in drill design that has great bearing on one's teaching method
is the extent to which context
or
situation
plays
a part in the drill. (Context is here used for the linguistic environment,
situation for the non-linguistic environment.) One can recognise four broad
divisions.
I.
Non-contextualised
Here
the structure drill does not pretend to be more than an artificial game
similar to a pianist's practising of scales. The learner may hear inputs that
are not possible utterances of the language; he may be asked to perform
activities that have no relation to what speakers do in actual speech.
I.P.1.
John's
going to Paris.
O.P.1.
John's
going to Paris.
I.P.2.
He
O.P.2.
He's
going to Paris.
I.P.3.
She
O.P.3
…
II.
Semi-contextualised
Here
the relationship between input and output is always one possible in speech,
and both input and output are natural utterances of the language.
I.P.1.
Fred's
going to change his job.
O.P.I.
Fred?
Changing his job? I don't believe it!
I.P.2.
Jane's
going to clean the car.
O.P.2.
Jane?
Cleaning the car? I don't believe it!
LP.3.
Susan's
going to paint the bedroom.
0.
P.3
…
III.
Contextualised
Not
only does each pair of input and output have a conversational relationship but
the consecutive pairs are linked together to form a conversation.
I.P.1.
Are
you coming to the party?
O.P.2.
No
I'm not.
I.P.2.
But
Susan's coming, I'm sure.
O.P.2.
No
she's not.
|
LP.3.
O.P.3. |
I.P.3
Well I know Basil's
going to be there.
O.P.4
…..
IV.
Situational
The
drill is here integrated into a situation in the classroom and on the objects
or activities available. For instance, the teacher or students may perform
various actions; the teacher asks What
is he doing? and
the class have to reply using the right grammatical structure.
The
degree of contextualisation is particularly important in English because of
the problem of personal pronouns. If the learner does not know that the drill
is contextualised, he will often produce an output that is perfectly
acceptable grammatically but wrong in the terms of the drill. For instance,
let us suppose the required output is I'm
French. In
a non-contextualised drill this output might be elicited thus:
I.P.1.
You.
O.P.1.
You're
French.
I.P.2.
I
O.P.2.
I'm
French.
In
a semi-contextualised drill this output might be elicited thus:
I.P.1.
What
am I?
O.P.1.
You're
French.
I.P.2.
What
are you?
O.P.2.
I'm
French.
If
the learner has confused the drill type, he will produce exactly the wrong
answer and will become unnecessarily alarmed by his mistake. He must, then,
always know whether he is practising the structure mechanically or is engaged
in a pseudo-conversation before he knows what to answer. Simple as this
point may be, it is surprisingly easy to overlook and very confusing to the
learner.
Closely
connected with contextualisation is the question of whether the input and
output have frames.
A
frame is a setting for the input or output that has nothing to do directly
with the particular grammatical structure being taught. First an example of a
drill without any frames:
I.P.
Tennis
O.P.
She
plays tennis.
I.P.
Golf
O.P.
She
plays golf.
Here
the input is non-contextualised and there is nothing redundant: it has to be
incorporated into the output in its entirety. Now the same drill with frames:
I.P.
Does
she play tennis?
O.P.
Oh
yes, she plays tennis all right.
I.P.
Does
she play golf?
O.P.
Oh
yes, she plays golf all right.
Both
input and output are more contextualised, because of the redundant language
now included: only a part of the input is incorporated in the output; only a
part of the output now practises the relevant structure. The frame is an
expansion of the minimal input and output necessary for a particular drill.
They can be expanded either by including more deletable parts of the sentence (Does
she always play tennis in the park on Sundays?) or
by the use of conversational phrases (What
I mean to say is, does she play tennis?). The
frame, then, lends itself to contextualising the drill and to practising forms
like Good
Heavens, I'm terribly sorry, and
you
know that
are difficult to teach in any other manner. As we shall see below, it can also
be used to divert the learner's conscious attention away from the grammatical
point he is practising.
Bearing
in mind that the previous classifications will be operating at the same time,
let us now consider the basic operations in a structure drill. These can be
seen essentially as variations of substitution, mutation, repetition, and
addition. In actual practise, a drill may utilise more than one of these
techniques; it is, however, convenient to separate them theoretically.
A.
Substitution
Under
this heading come those drills that can most simply be described by the master
sentence approach mentioned above. Inevitably there will be some overlap with
mutation, where the other approach will be adopted. In most disputable cases
the master sentence approach yields a simpler description. A substitution
drill, then, has a master output into which items are inserted according to
information supplied in the input; all the outputs are variations of the
original master (or masters, if sufficient examples are given to the learner).
1.
Plain
This
is the basic type of substitution drill. A number of examples have already
been given. It may or may not have frames and it can function in two ways.
In the first the substituted item, which may consist of a word, phrase,
or clause, always replaces the same grammatical constituent of the output.
I.P.
Do
you like whisky?
O.P.
I
love whisky?
I.P.
Do
you like tea?
O.P.
I
love tea.
In
the second the substituted item replaces any constituent of the output.
I.P.
Whisky
O.P.
I
love whisky.
I.P.
Hate
O.P.
I
hate whisky.
I.P.
He
O.P.
He
loves whisky.
It
is also possible to change the master output cumulatively rather than
returning to it each time. The
last output would then read He
hates whisky.
2.
Sequence
Here
the learner chooses the item to substitute because of its position in a list
in the input. This type will invariably have a frame.
I.P.
I
can't decide whether I like swimming or skating best.
O.P.
Oh,
I prefer skating.
I.P.
I
can't decide whether I like dancing or walking best.
O.P.
Oh,
I prefer walking.
Another
advantage of the frame is here apparent in that it elucidates and provides a
synonym for prefer.
3.
Lexical
drills
Unlike
the two preceding types, the item to be substituted is not present in the
input. The learner has instead to select an item to fit the input according to
the principle established in the input. It must not be thought that this type
of drill is teaching vocabulary; rather it is using lexis to guide the
learner's choice of the item to substitute.
There
are a number of relationships within lexis that can be used in drills. The
following are examples only.
(i)
Lexical pairs These are pairs that occur naturally in the language (tall/short,aunt/uncle,
lend/borrow). The
input has one member of the pair, the output the other. If the pairs are
sufficiently common, then they need not all be illustrated to the learner; the
rarer the pairs, the fewer there should be.
I.P.
Is
Bill young?
O.P.
No,
he's old.
I.P.
Is
John rich?
O.P.
No,
he's poor.
One
should also mention here a type of drill similar to this, but in which the
pairs are linked purely for the drill. Obviously these have to be much more
limited than natural pairs, but they serve the same purpose of limiting the
output to one particular utterance. In the following drill all women are
fascinating, whereas all men are boring.
I.P.
Mike's
a doctor.
O.P.
Oh,
I think doctors are boring.
I.P.
Susan's
an actress.
O.P.
Oh,
I think actresses are fascinating.
(ii)
Lexical sets Some well defined lexical sets such as days of the week and
months can be exploited by using a regular progression between input and
output.
I.P.
I'm
seeing him on Tuesday.
O.P.
Couldn't
you see him on Wednesday instead?
I.P.
He's
meeting her on Saturday.
O.P.
Couldn't
he meet her on Sunday instead?
(iii)
Collocation
The
learner has to select the appropriate collocation to fit the input.
I.P.
When
did you get to London?
O.P.
I
arrived in London about ten.
(iv)
Lexical
meaning
Out
of a limited number of choices, the learner has to select the right reaction
according to the meaning of the input.
I.P.
It's
raining!
O.P.
How
annoying!
I.P.
The
sun's come out!
O.P.
How
nice!
I.P.
It's
pouring!
O.P.
How
annoying!
This
type would probably most often occur as the frame of another drill rather than
by itself.
4.
Pronoun Substitution
Using
the master output approach, we can regard this type as one of choosing an item
to substitute from the limited set of pronouns in accordance with the input.
This very common drill technique has already been used above without comment.
As was mentioned, drills using pronouns must have their degree of contextualisation
specified as the correct choice of person will depend on this. In English,
also, confusion can arise from the inclusive and exclusive uses of we.
The
only way of making the student choose between Yes,
we can and
Yes,
you can as
answers to Can
we go? is
by a carefully framed input.
It
is also possible to exploit this relationship in reverse.
I.P.
I suppose
he was there.
O.P.
Oh
yes, John was there.
LP.
I suppose
she was there.
O.P.
Oh
yes, Mary was there.
5.
Knowledge drills
In
this case, as with lexical drills, the item to substitute is not in the input
but has to be supplied by the student from his own knowledge.
I.P.
Who
wrote "Hamlet"?
O.P.
Shakespeare
did.
I.P.
Who
was Queen Victoria's husband?
O.P.
Albert
was.
These
can be based either on information given to him in other parts of the course,
or be pure general knowledge, arithmetic, and so on. The distinction between
this type and a quiz is that the outputs always conform to a given grammatical
structure and that the student merely inserts one item from his background
knowledge into this structure.
B.
Mutation
Mutation
drills are those where the successive outputs having nothing in common apart
from the grammatical structure being drilled. Substitution is, then, basically
paradigmatic: the learner selects from a real or arbitrary set of items the
one to use in the output. Mutation is basically syntagmatic: the learner
changes the grammatical structure of the input to produce the output. In the
majority of drills, the two operations happen simultaneously (as in the
concord of subject and verb in pronoun substitution). In most cases of
dispute, the master output approach describes the learner doing a lesser
number of things; for this reason it has been used up to now.
The
possible types of mutation are limited only by the possible grammatical
relationships of the language. The following reported speech example is chosen
because it shows a clear case where description by the master output approach
would imply the learner was performing an impossibly large number of substitutions.
I.P.
Open
the door!
O.P.
He
told me to open the door.
I.P.
Would
you like some tea?
O.P.
He
asked me if I'd like some tea.
One
other type of mutation drill that is common is the combination drill. Here
the input has two distinct parts, sometimes said by different speakers, parts
which the learner has to combine into one output. (This should be
distinguished from Addition below, where the learner has to add successive
outputs together, rather than two parts of one input.)
I.P.
I met
Mr. Brown yesterday. What's
he? A teacher?
O.P.
Oh
yes, it was the Mr. Brown who's a teacher.
I.P.
I met
Mr. and Mrs. Stevens yesterday. What
are they? Teachers?
O.P.
Oh
yes, they're
the Mr.
and Mrs. Stevens who are teachers.
C.
Repetition
The
learner merely repeats the input; input and output are Identical. Though this
may play an incidental part in other types of drill, it does not seem very
useful as a drill technique by itself for drilling grammatical structure.
D.
Addition
The
successive inputs are added together, gradually building up to the required
final output. This addition can take place either at the beginning or end of
the output. The following drill is then an addition drill building up at the
beginning.
I.P.I,
to
the cinema
O.P.I,
to
the cinema
I.P.2.
goes
O.P.2.
goes
to the cinema
I.P.3.
Charles
O.P.3.
Charles
goes to the cinema.
Like
repetition, addition does not possess much variation but can be used as part of
the frame.
The
discussion so far has been restricted to drills with spoken inputs so the
question of medium has not arisen. Most of the preceding types could have
written or visual inputs just as well. There are, however, some features which
are specific to a given medium that lend themselves to drills. In a spoken
drill, for instance, the frame can depend on the sex, age, or role of the
speaker as revealed by his voice {Good
morning madam/sir, Would you like a whisky/ice-cream?) or
use can be made of sound effects.
This
article has dealt with some of the methods of drill design. It has left
untouched such areas as the phases of a drill, the length of a drill, the number
of examples, and recognition drills in which the student distinguishes between
grammatical structures but does not use them. It attempts to provide a tentative
conceptual framework for the discussion of drills.
One
point that does emerge from this framework is the extremely limited number of
operations that the learner has to perform in a structure drill. In previous
discussions, there appeared to be a multitude of drill types, but, if one
accepts the master output approach, this is shown to be an illusion due to
considering the input-output pairs rather than the successive outputs. It does
appear that what is happening in a drill is much more limited than had been
previously thought. This limitation is particularly apparent when one applies
the distinction between deep and surface structure to drills. All the operations
we have described appear to deal solely with the manipulation of surface
structure. Whether this is due to the inadequacy of the present treatment or to
the inadequacy of structure drills for teaching deep structure is not yet clear.
Endnotes
1.
St. P. Kaczmarski (1965), ‘Language drills and exercises – a tentative
classification’, IRAL, III/3
2.
Cf F.L. Marty (1960), Language Laboratory Learning, Wellesley, Massachusetts: AudioVisual
Publications