The Value and Reasonable Limits of Behaviorist Drills in Modern Communicative Language Classes

Authors

  • Jing Wang China West Normal University, Nanchong, Sichuan 637002, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/jedss.v1n3.04

Keywords:

Behaviorist drills, Value, Limits

Abstract

Although behaviorist drills have been less used in language teaching since the emergence of Communicative Language Teaching in the 1980s, this paper suggests that they still have important educational value when applied under appropriate limits. It is believed that the main advantage of behaviorist drills is to improve the automaticity of language processing, thus freeing up the limited working memory of the learners for more important communicative activities. To facilitate the proper use of drills in modern English classes, three limit rules are put forward: drills should start from mechanical to meaningful, move from de-contextualized to contextualized, and adopt different kinds to prevent monotony. Finally, the paper indicates that in the post-method era, language teachers should regard drills as a means to achieve communication rather than the final goal of learning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Wang, L. (2011). Let behaviorism give way to the cognitive psychology learning theory teaching model: On the effectiveness of college English teaching under the guidance of constructivist theory. Science & Technology Information, 31, 230.

[2] Yang, L. (2008). How to apply Bruner's "cognitive-discovery" learning theory in English teaching. Forum on Contemporary Education, 26, 85–86.

[3] Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

[4] Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

[5] Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.

[6] Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Penguin.

[7] Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.

[8] DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.

[9] VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–301.

[10] 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. Newbury House.

Downloads

Published

23-07-2026

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Wang, J. (2026). The Value and Reasonable Limits of Behaviorist Drills in Modern Communicative Language Classes. Journal of Educational Development and Social Sciences, 1(3), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.62051/jedss.v1n3.04