Want to learn why noticing is a crucial skill for language learners and how to improve it? Watch Steve’s new video:
2 Likes
Is this your missing professor from San Diego, who spoke at the California Association for Bilingual Education Conference, not the [American Council for the Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)] in 2000?
No-one in their right mind uses grammar drills, and surely no-one teaches their students to do grammar drills either.
1 Like
Look up, say on Amazon, “German grammar drills” and you would find plenty of old-style drill material for one of your target languages… This is certainly still a “rabbit hole” down which a lot of language teachers and students disappear…
But in any case I thought you were always trying to move us away from the comprehensible input methodology of Krashen and Kaufmann, steering us towards “deliberate learning which involves the conscious, goal-oriented study of language rules, vocabulary, and grammar”… Or is that methodology somehow different from “drilling”?
The fact is that there are still so many classrooms where students spend a lot of time doing grammar drills, mainly because that’s what their teachers are telling them to do.
At the same time, I’m fully aware of how valuable it is to read a text, listen to it, highlight or click on the words you don’t understand, and even use something like ChatGPT to get explanations when a grammar point is unclear.
I know how important that whole process is, but I don’t think it’s right to completely dismiss grammar drills as if they’re useless, because I can personally remember how much they helped me when I was preparing for certain national English exams or when I was aiming for higher-level Cambridge exams like C1 or C2.
Back then, I made sure to pay close attention to grammar, especially how to structure conditionals or mixed conditionals in English, and also how to get fully comfortable with verb placement—which is very different from Turkish, my native language. So I absolutely recognize the usefulness of grammar drills, but I think they shouldn’t be the very first step in someone’s learning journey.
Instead, they should come later, when a learner is already advanced and has a specific purpose, like preparing for an exam where grammar-focused questions are actually tested.
That’s why I don’t agree with the idea of writing off grammar drills completely or calling them useless. At the same time, I’m also fully convinced that one of the most effective ways to learn a language is through reading and listening to texts, while engaging with the vocabulary directly—which is exactly what a platform like LingQ provides.
8 Likes
I consider the alphabet, pronunciation, spelling, punctuation and numbers as part of grammar.
Only grammar drills/practice will make one fluent in grammar.
Only reading drills/practice will make one fluent in reading.
Only spelling drills/practice will make one fluent in spelling.
Only alphabet drills/practice will make one fluent in alphabet.
Only number drills/practice will make one fluent in numbers.
End of day it depends on goal, to me an all-round approach is best imo, to prevent boredom, but 90+ % of my time is spent on consuming/using language.
I can see some people (linguist) who may do a lot of grammar because that could be part of their goal to be “fluent” in grammar. They may even study things like IPA.
2 Likes
Since I despise drills. other than speaking drills, I use intensive reading almost primarily to internalize gramma. Extensive is of great help, but intensive reading (also listening of course) seem to be the difference that makes the difference for me.
1 Like
A drill is a continuos repetition of an action until it is completely internalized, thus making you capable of reproducing it with no errors under any circumstances. This is not the same thing as active learning and practicing.
Making such generalized statements as “Grammar drills won’t make you fluent” don’t serve any purpose, imho. Of course they don’t, as grammar is just one part of a language. But comprehensible input or consuming the language in general won’t make you fluent either, whatever this precisely means. Some languages are rather grammer intensive, and simple avoiding dealing with it just because of some ideology don’t seem to be a worthwhile approach imho.
3 Likes
I have a German grammar book, it doesn’t mean I study the book, I use it as a reference. I suspect these drills are intended to form a small part of a students study time. And some drills can form a useful part of output. I construct phrases in French and German, then compare them to a machine translation, to check that I am not making mistakes. It is very beneficial. I am sure some students disappear down the drill rabbit hole. Duolingo is a good example of disappearing down a rabbit hole, it is essentially drilling, but it is after all a crap commercial product.
Drills can be useful, but only as part of one’s study.
Not at all. You’ve completely misunderstood my views.
Unfortunately Steve Kaufmann and Stephen Krashen have tried to create a false dichotomy in order to market their products. They describe their method as the natural way to learn, the way that children learn. That makes it sound exciting, modern and scientific. They contrast their method with a fictitious traditional way of learning using rote memorisation, rigid grammar and so on. And unfortunately they throw out the baby with the bath water, by rejecting conscious study. Krashen explicitly states -wrongly so - that we cannot learn any language by conscious study.
I’ve read several undergraduate textbooks and articles on language teaching, and in truth there are countless language teaching methodologies. Krashen’s method is but one, and it has been discredited. I know of only one method that revolves around rote learning, the Grammar Translation Method, which was used for learning dead languages such as Latin and Anglo Saxon.
In truth the Krashen method is neither natural, nor how children learn. How children learn is in fact quite fascinating, and output plays a key role, as does learning set phrases.
The term comprehensible input was coined by Krashen and it forms part of his discredited theory. We should be referring to graded input, as that is a much clearer expression and does not come with associated discredited theoretical baggage.
Research shows that we need lots of graded input, with new words introduced into each lesson and repetition of words across multiple lessons. Research also shows that we do need to do some conscious study, and we need to do some output as well, since input alone is insufficient. And yes, memorising some common verb conjugations can be very helpful as part of one’s study. But only if you like doing that.
3 Likes
Btw, the video is not about grammar drills but about noticing patterns?
1 Like
I’m not capable to do that. I can read a lot but I could get stuck into my advanced level forever. It’s quite “easy” to reach an intermediate-advanced level, which is mostly what Kaufmann does with its languages. But it’s another beast to go from advanced to excellence. Which is not what most people do.
Especially if you want to be really good in every aspect of the language.
Many people just want to speak, or read, and so on. They often never tackle the entire language. And let’s face it, it’s understandable, because in reality, it’s a massive work. Especially if you want to become really good at writing, or perfecting your speaking, or understand difficult topics, and so on.
Our brain wants to avoid too much effort.
I have listened to tons of audiobooks, no problem. But do I really understand everything very well? My brain could skip a ton of words and I would still understand the meanings and the concepts, but do I? Do I really understand all the nuances? All the details of the story?
If I don’t make an active effort to go catch all those weak points, I can be stuck at that level forever.
I think that going beyond the average is another level of learning. And yes, you need a massive level of input, like Kaufmann said in the video, but it’s not enough. You need knowledge of the structure of the language, and also a lot of outputs, and also valuable feedback, and so on. Probably even drills here and there. Sometimes I ask ChatGPT to create them for me. Lynx could do the same.
Bottom line, it’s a lot of painful work! Imho.
8 Likes
I noticed this as well I ignored quite a lot and reading was less than accurate. I do get a gist of what I am reading.
Recently I got a tutor who starts lessons with reading a passage, followed by questions about the passage. Later he will introduce a new short but important (according to him) grammar point which he explains in about 5mins. After that it is some quizzes. making sentences and etc, class ends with conversation.
The rest of the week i spend reading, listening, watching on LingQ, kindle, YT, games, audio on mp3 player. In term of percentage of time spent consuming vs lesson it is 93%+ (consume) vs <7% (lesson)
The cool thing is that whatever he taught, i later notice in reading books, subtitle and etc. Things i learnt in lessons pops out in texts. Maybe I would have eventually noticed these patterns but some active study seems to helps to give a boost. It creates more of those “notice” events when consuming.
6 Likes
That mirrors my own experience. I would get the gist of a French podcast, but not the details. By deliberate study of words and phrases in each podcast, I gradually started to notice the details. And of course over time the brain gets better at processing the input, giving you more time to focus on the details.
I tended to use input - podcasts - that were much too advanced for my level, but the ones specifically for learners were usually too boring. I’m sure children have an advantage that they can watch graded input, i.e. media content for children, and not get bored.
4 Likes
Yes, this is a strategy that I should remember to apply, and I will definitely apply it more systematically soon. For example, we can start on Monday morning by reading just a micro pill of grammar. Then we keep going with our inputs for the rest of the week. In one year, this will be 52 concepts, we won’t cover everything but it will definitely boost our pattern recognition. Good strategies matter a lot!
2 Likes
I’m sure you’re right. I met quite a few Germans in my last job, and they spoke English well, but with a slight to moderate accent and grammar errors. They were probably B2, and had no problem communicating clearly. That step up to near native is a big one. Presumably most people who learn for their career don’t bother as communication is the goal.
2 Likes