Audio-lingual proponents supported the use of pattern drills as a means of conditioning automatic language habits. They also favored an inductive approach to teaching the structures drilled in pattern practice. This position was taken and defended even though ". . . hardly any empirical research can be cited either to support the use of pattern practice drills as contrasted with other variables of teaching grammar, or to indicate what variables control the successes of particular types of drills" (Carroll, 1963, p. 1072).
Since that statement was made, some research involving pattern drills has been done. Torrey (1965) found students taught inductively through pattern practice to be superior to students taught rules and vocabulary. McKinnon (1965) conducted an experiment with two relevant factors: (1) method of practice, and (2) an inductive versus a deductive presentation. The results indicated that active practice before listening to the master tape was superior to listening prior to practice, that practice in which pictures indicated "situational meaning" was superior to no pictures, and that both methods were superior to normal "pattern practice." In addition discovery learning was not as effective as deductive presentation of structure.
McKinnon's findings suggested that active composition prior to hearing the correct answer was important in language practice. In other words, type of practice was found to be more important than mere rate of repetition. An experiment by Lim (1968) produced similar results. The conclusion was that conformation (practice in which the students respond to a stimulus prior to being presented with the correct response) was superior to prompting (practice in which the stimulus and response patterns are presented together).
Often, pattern drills have been viewed as a means of conditioning structural patterns in the language. Meaning was not considered to be important. The drills were not part of a communicative context, nor were they meant to be. In two separate studies, Oiler and Obrecht (1968, p. 173) obtained results that contradicted the validity of this conception of pattern practice devoid of any communicative context. In their words, "The data indicate that the separation of 'manipulative-skill' from 'expressive use' in the FL classroom
is, at best, highly undesirable." Those students practicing drills in context responded 40 percent faster and scored 17 percent higher in pronunciation.
The findings of a study by Jarvis (1970) support the conclusions of Oiler and Obrecht. Jarvis compared two groups of students. In one group, the students practiced with pattern drills in which the object was to manipulate structural forms without reference to particular people, places, or things. In the other group, the students referred to real people, places, and things during the practice periods. They talked about specific rooms, specific classes, specific activities, etc. At the end of one semester, there were no significant differences between the two groups in listening and reading, but the students in the contextualized practice groups had significantly higher achievement scores in speaking and writing. In other words, those students who had practiced using language in communicative contexts were better able to originate needed language utterances to express meaning.
In a study dealing with the functionalization of structure as a vehicle for communication, Savignon (1972) examined the effects of three treatments: one hour per week learning to communicate in French, one hour per week studying aspects of French culture in English, and one hour per week practicing French structure in the language laboratory. During the other class periods the students were involved in similar activities. At the end of the study there were no differences among the three groups in listening, reading, or final course grade. The students who had spent one hour per week communicating in French were significantly superior on the instructor's evaluation of oral skill and on a test of communicative competence. Savignon also suggests that a distinction should be made between communicative competence and linguistic competence.
In a recent study that has far-reaching implications for the acquisition of structure, Hosenfeld (1973) asked students to think aloud while doing exercises for their French class. The solicitation of learner strategies by means of retrospection and introspection indicated that often a great disparity exists between what teachers think the students are learning from doing a specific exercise and what is actually going through their minds. Often neither the entire sentence nor its meaning is even considered while an exercise is being completed. Instead the students, in a typically human fashion, seem to search for some insight that will allow them to complete the task with the minimum amount of information and effort.