A response to Robert Heinich and Suzanne Damarin

Abstract

ISSN 0148-5806 "No course," he writes, "is taught entirely by one instructional mode." I certainly agree with this, but find two points worth adding. First, practice of component facts and skills should always take place within the context of the learner's intention of achieving some higher level goal (speaking Chinese in Heinich's case). Second, the methods of practice to achieve short-term goals should never undermine long-term goals. The first point is always brought home to me when I observe my son's music teacher telling him that every drill-and-practice finger exercise should always be an expression of his love of music and not merely a mindless quest for technical excellence. Otherwise the two become disconnected and the qualitative dimension of music gets lost. This analogy holds for all drill and practice in any subject. Is this an unrealistic expectation? Some would argue that it is, ecause school should be a preparation for adult work, which itself is often fragmented and alienating. I would argue that it is not unrealistic, because the purpose of schooling is not just a conservative function (preparing students for the existing social order), but also a progressive function (preparing students to restructure social relations in order to promote the general welfare and social justice).' Furthermore,