In our last in-class meeting, we were asked to work in groups on specific questions concerning internet usage and the usefulness of certain learning methods. Afterwards we should go around and have a look at each of the other posters. (Like in a gallery 
)Our blogging task for this week was to write an entry on the posters we had created.
As I started to think about the four different posters I had seen, two of them came to my mind quite quickly. The first one was the poster concerning the “Drill&Practice” method in learning situations. The task of that group was to explain why drill & practice software is still distributed. And secondly, they should clarify if they think that it is useful.
Firstly, I really liked the animations of a heart and a lightbulb. It was not only a great idea, but also a helping hand in understanding what they tried to convey. As far as the content is concerned, I would say that it was good to indicate the two kinds of learning. I would agree on the fact that the “drill&practice”-method is useful when it comes down to vocabulary, history dates and anatomical terms. This “learning by heart” does not really demand a deep understanding on the subject. As a learner you just have to internalize facts, but you do not have to “waste time” in trying to understand them.
The group tried to illustrate with the lightbulb that the “Drill&Practice”-method is not useful in all contexts. I also think that not every subject in school can and should be “learned by heart”, but on the contrary with a sense of understanding. The group mentioned topics such as maths, text work and grammar. Others like chemistry or physics should also be learned “with understanding”. There has to be an overall knowledge and understanding of what is important in order to transfer it to other exercises (like in exams).
When it comes to languages, I would say that it might be right on the one hand that pupils can learn vocabulary with the “Drill&Practice”-method, but that on the other hand grammar cannot be learned like this. They have to understand the rules in order to produce correct sentences. We ,as teachers of at least one language, have to bear in mind that we explain to our pupils that they cannot always learn for exams by doing dull memorization of facts. Sometimes it is important to understand complexes and not only little parts. This method still exists, because it has some good arguments such as less time consuming, one can learn things by heart and the teacher might be less stressed.
All in all, I think that the group did a very nice job with their poster and it became clear that the method should be used wisely. Not every subject/topic is appropriate to be learned by “Drill&Practice”. So I would “buy” their poster.
The second poster I remembered dealt with the question whether computer skills are more essential than knowledge, social problems, reading etc.
The first point to mentioned is that the structure of the poster was quite clear. But I remembered this poster because of its content. I think that the group is right to say that new media is becoming more and more important and that computer skills are often required. But it is also important to know what is going on in the world, how to behave with others and to have other skills. What is worth having computer skills, when I do not know what had happened in the past (history of countries). To my mind, we have to bear in mind that other skills in literature, history, maths and others are way more important than computer skills. The latter might be a plus, an addition, but they cannot replace general knowledge. I would agree with the group that computer skills should not be overrated, but I would go a step further by saying that we do not want to become “experts in computer, but idiots in social behaviour and general knowledge”.
In a nutshell, I liked the ideas and the illustration of the group. They succeeded in showing the important aspects of both sides.
I totally agree with your opinion about the drill aspect: it’s definitaley the best way to learn vocabulary but does not work for grammar, etc. Learners should be more involved into the learning process. Furthermore, I don’t want my class to behave like the “Federal Armed Forces”