Learning with drilling exercises

Lyytinen et al. (2009, p.669) explain the choice of a drilling format for the Graphogame exercises in relation to the difficulties behind delays in reading acquisition: difficulties in storing and retrieving letter-sound correspondences. The number of such letter-sound correspondences being relatively low in transparent writing systems, they can be drilled

‘efficiently and without complications’ (ibid., p.672) to train for faster retrieval (ibid.).

As previously explained, Graphogame comprises of exercises diverse in their outlook, but similar in terms of the task to be accomplished so that the instruction remains the same throughout the game: ‘Listen carefully. Choose the sound you have heard’.

Some elements from the initial interview with the 1B teacher indicated that the drilling methodology would indeed function. She explained that the main obstacle to reading acquisition seemed to be that the kids simply did not remember what they read. This could suggest that the pupils required abundant repetition for decoding. Observations of the participants’ behaviours also intimated this difficulty in retrieving the letter-sound correspondences.

“Session 15/10: E: E. got stuck in the ladder game: he has to choose between 2 answer options to go to the next level of the ladder and doesn't know the answer. But he keeps on trying the same answer option, instead of trying the other one and going to the next level of the ladder” (field notes).

But in spite of these elements, factors in the Peruvian study limited the efficiency of the drilling format. A first issue with the use of drills in the study is one regarding the sounds recorded for the Peruvian version of Graphogame. In fact, both the Peruvian linguist from Lima -the capital city- and the population of Quilcas spoke Peruvian Spanish. However, soon after the start of the intervention, it became apparent that the kids uttered sounds that do not belong to Standard Peruvian Spanish, which could be an issue of dialect or indigenous language interference. The field notes also mention the use of alternative words, so that ‘bathroom’ in Quilcas was 'pichi' instead of ‘baño’, or ‘rubbish’ was ‘tacho’

FIGURE 11: The ladder game.

instead of ‘basura’. These differences made it harder for the participants to find the target answers, and although it is specific to the village of Quilcas, it can be expected to be encountered in other places in Peru.

Moreover, by practicing drills extensively, some participants developed mal-adapted reading strategies, for which the game does not correct. Graphogame is an adaptive game, evolving in accordance with the level of the player. It progresses from drilling letters, to syllables, and towards pseudowords and words. Yet, it does not explain to the pupils how to transition from the letter, to the syllable level of difficulty. Consequently, some participants devised their own, sometimes incorrect, strategies. R. was in this situation and he staid stuck at the letter level for a long time, until he developed a strategy which I nicknamed ‘spot the vowel’. He would search among the answer options for the one which incorporated the vowel sound he had heard in the speech sound. For instance, if he had heard the speech sound /da/, he would look for /a/ among the options on the screen.

Although this strategy would sometimes work, other times several of the answer options would include the same vowel sound, such as /pa/ or /ta/. R. was confused by the fact that his strategy would work sometimes, and sometimes not. Until the end of the intervention, he kept on using this method, in line with McGuinness’s (2004, p.328) remark that

‘ineffective decoding strategy leads to habits that can be hard to break’. In a game, this strategy is somewhat valid since it still helped R. to score; it is not however an adapted strategy for a real-life situation when the child has to read and understand a text.

Actually, the importance of learning to read for meaning-making purpose was highlighted by the 1A teacher in her initial interview:

“But the problem with your program is that it is not impacting anything. Nothing happens if they choose the wrong answer. It’s not real. So it doesn’t motivate the kids to apply themselves as much.”

The 1B teacher also explained that her method to reading instruction relies on the use of context cues:

“I use small texts and then asks the kids to answer some simple questions. I teach them by making them focus on three moments: before they read, they should look at the picture along the text and imagine, make hypothesis regarding the topic of the text; then they start reading together and explain the words; finally after reading, they

discuss what they have understood and use the reading fiche to answer some simple questions.”

The importance of reading for meaning-making purpose is also highlighted in the literature, for pupils to see the relation between instruction and real-life literacy tasks.

Gambrell et al. (2011, pp.21-22) encourage tying reading instruction to authentic reading activities that are meaning centred and to give access to a variety of print material. They explain that reading instruction should encompass reading for pleasure, to be informed and to perform a task, as opposed to teaching pupils to read solely to learn –for instance, by having to complete assignments or answer teacher's questions.

The 1A teacher also described this diversity as being key to successful reading instruction:

“This game is only drilling them, making them repeat again and again. But kids also have to investigate. Kids in my class are doing better than in the other. That’s because I create material for them, using poems, stories, drawings and I do them all myself. I make them write and draw, and I write and draw with them to show them. And I look in their copybooks, I analyse what it is that they are failing at and why, not just if it’s correct or not.”

Using multiple strategies for instruction is especially important in the case of struggling readers. Allington (2011, p.104) recommends to tackle a single text, to make use of:

picture cues, making sense, use of letter-sound relationships, reading on to find out what happens, and re-reading along with meaning making in order to cross-check...

The Peruvian pilot study pointed out an additional limit to the drilling format, which may or may not be related to the above-mentioned lacks of the drilling format –namely the lack of real-life meaning, of diversity, and of opportunity for interactions. Indeed, the participants in the Peruvian study complained repeatedly that Graphogame was monotonous, as highlighted by the following extracts from my field notes:

“Session 5/11: The kids have been complaining for about 3 weeks that the tablet game is repetitive. They are more interested in the computer version, as there are more games and the character is evolving through the maze.”

“Session 15/11: After their 20 minutes session, the kids played together on the laptop.

Some kids asked if we could put another game on as this one was boring.”

In spite of being in the classroom with the participants, I could not identify with certainty what part of Graphogame it was they were finding ‘boring’. However, I mostly intimate to the lack of interaction explained above. But in the case of the session 15/11, the children were in fact playing together, so that I was led to believe that the drilling format of the game, when used massively, became too repetitive. Yet, the intensive use of Graphogame is prescribed by the Graphogame team itself (Saine et al., 2011, pp.1014-1015).

Consequently, the effectiveness of Graphogame in the Peruvian study seemed to be somehow limited by the repetitive nature of the drilling format, which challenged the interest of children and was mal-adapted to a situation of numerous local dialects.

Furthermore, it may have led to the development of incorrect reading strategies by children, and was criticised by the teachers for lacking in authenticity and creativity.

In this chapter, I have explained how the participants of Quilcas have progressively evolved away from playing as expected and predicted in the literature -playing to learn, playing individually, and playing using the drilling methodology- towards alternative ways of interacting with the game. It seemed that the participants were playing for fun, as indicated by the avoidance of the undesired features of the game, or of playing Graphogame altogether, and instead getting involved in other unrelated activities. Also, the participants increasingly displayed needs for interactions with peers and teacher to keep on performing the exercise. Lastly, the use of the drilling methodology in the case of the participants of Quilcas came to highlight issues of conflict with local pronunciation, emergence of mal-adapted reading strategies, and boredom –which could relate to the repetitive use of the methodology or to the lack of real-life meaning and creativity of the methodology.

7. THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER IN THE CLASSROOM