Deductive vs. Inductive Grammar Teaching

Deductivevs.InductiveGrammarTeachingTHEEFFECTSOFDEDUCTIVEANDINDUCTIVEAPPROACHESOFTEACHINGONJORDANIANUNIVERSITYSTUDENTS'USEOFTHEACTIVEANDPASSIVEVOICEINENGLISHBy:Mohammed,AzmiAdel,Jaber,HannaAbu,CollegeStudentJournal,01463934,Jun2008PartB,Vol.42,Issue2.Database:AcademicSearchPremier1.RelatedLiteratureThisempiricalstudypresentedthedescriptionoftwoteachingmethodscalled"deductive"and"inductive"approaches.Thefirstinvolvedprovidingagroupofparticipantswithrulesandthenexamplesdirectlyandseparately,butthesecondapproachinvolvesprovidinganothergroupofparticipantswithexamplesorcontentwithoutofferingexplicitgrammarrules,andsothestudentsshouldinducesuchrulesbythemselves.Thisstudyinvestigatedtheeffectsofeachapproachandtheinteractionbetween"thetypeofteachingapproach"and"theuseoftheactiveandpassivevoicesentences"inEnglishasaforeignlanguage(EFL).Ninety-threefreshmanandjunioruniversitystudentsparticipatedinthisstudy.TheywerechosenrandomlyfromthreeclassesintwouniversitiesinJordan.Themethodofthestudyincludedapretest,twolessonsforeachgroupinthethreeclassesandaposttest.Theresultsofthestudyrevealasignificantstatisticalresultatthelevelof0.05betweenthetwoapproachesforthedeductivegroup.Butthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenclassesforthesametypeofapproach.Thereisalsonosignificanteffectfortheinteractionbetweenapproachandclass.1.1TheImportanceofTeachingGrammarEnglishistodaytheworld'smostwidelyusedlanguage.Thedesiretolearnitisatthepresentissoimmense.ThefutureofEnglishasaninternationallanguagehasalwaysbeensaidtorestonthepracticabilityofteachingthelanguage.Formorethan2000yearsofdebateregardingwhethergrammarshouldbeaprimaryfocusoflanguageinstructionorshouldbeeliminatedentirely,orshouldbesubordinatedtomeaning-focuseduseofthetargetlanguageiscontinuinginthetradition.Butonceagain,theneedforgrammarinstructionisattractingtheattentionofresearchersandteachersofsecondlanguageacquisition.AdebatewastheoreticallyrepresentedbyKrashen's(1981)distinctionbetweenconsciouslearningandunconsciousacquisitionoflanguage.Theclaimwasthatlanguageshouldbeacquiredthroughnaturalexposure,notlearnedthroughformalinstruction(Ellis,2002;Skehan,1998).Despitesuchresearchfindings,NassajiandFotos(2004)indicatethatcurrentresearchinsecondlanguagelearning,however,hasledtoareconsiderationoftheroleofgrammarinsecondlanguageclassroom.Theresearchsuggeststhatsometypesoffocusongrammaticalformswerenecessaryiflearnersweretodevelophighlevelsofaccuracyinthetargetlanguage.Mostsecondlanguageinvestigatorsagreethatnoticingorawarenessoftargetstructuresandformsplaysanessentialroleinsecondlanguagelearningwasnecessaryiflearnersweretodevelophighlevelsofaccuracyinthetargetlanguage(Doughty,2001;Ellis,2002).Briefly,thereconsiderationofgrammarteachinginsecondlanguageclassroom,accordingtomanyresearchersandinvestigators,isevidenceforthepositiveeffectsofgrammarinstructionastheirempiricalandclassroombasedstudies.1.2TheDeductiveApproachofTeachingThedeductiveapproachofteachingEnglishgrammarreferstothestyleofteachingstudentsbyintroducingthegrammaticalrulesfirst,andthenapplyingthembythestudents.Thismeansthatateacherworksfromthemoregeneraltothemorespecificinadeductiveapproachcalledinformallya"topdown"approach.Decoo(1996)understandseducationasaprocessthatgoesfromthegeneraltothespecific.WhereasMountone(2004)statesthatthedeductivemethodsseemtoworkbestifyouwantstudentstobeabletoquicklyandaccuratelysolveproblemslikethoseworkedoutinclassorinthework.Younie(1974)believesthatthedeductiveapproachismorepredictablebecausetheteacherselectstheinformationandthesequenceofpresentation.Shaffer(1989)criticizesthedeductiveapproachclarifyingthattheproblemmanystudentshaveapplyingthesevariousrulesindicatesthattheymaynotfullyunderstandtheconceptsinvolvedandthatthedeductiveapproachtendstoemphasizegrammarattheexpenseofmeaningandtopromotepassiveratherthanactiveparticipationofthestudents.ButGoneretal(1978)statethatthedeductiveapproachcanbeeffectivewithstudentsofahigherlevel,whoalreadyknowthebasicstructuresofthelanguage,orwithstudentswhoareaccustomedtoaverytraditionalstyleoflearning."SchrampferandSpack(2005)introduceaprogramwherethepresentation-practice-production-evaluationpatternadoptedbytheprogramisafeatureofthedeductiveapproachtotheteachinggrammarassumingthatpotentialuserswillunderstandtherulegoverningthetargetgrammarpattern.1.3TheInductiveApproachofTeachingTheinductiveapproachreferstothestyleofintroducinglanguagecontextcontainingthetargetruleswherestudentscaninducesuchrulesthroughthecontextandpracticalexamples.Inotherwords,thesequenceinthisapproachgoesfromcreatingasituationandgivingexamplestothegeneralizationwherestudentsshoulddiscoversuchgeneralizationbythemselvesorwiththeteacher'shelp.Mautone(2004)saysthatwithaninductiveapproach,teachersshowtheirstudentsaseriesofexamplesandnon-examples,andthenguidethemtowardnoticingapatternandcomingupwiththegeneralizationorconceptrule.SomescholarssuchasAusubel(1963)andCarroll(1964)indicatedthattheinductiveapproachwastoodifficultforweakerorslowerstudents,andthatonlybrighterstudentswerecapableofdiscoveringtheunderlyingpatternsofastructure,buttheresultsofShaffer'sresearch(1989)indicatethatweakerstudentsdobenefitfromaninductiveapproach.Amongseveralstudiessupportingtheideathattheinductiveapproachhasproveditssuccessinachievingstudents'retentionormemoryanddeepunderstanding,Younie's(1974)statesthatstudentstendtorememberwhenlearningoccursinductively.Someteacherssupportsuchideasandbelievethatengagingwiththemeaningofformsandwordsthroughaninductiveapproachleadstobetterunderstandingandretention.Bluedorn(1989),andShaffer(1989)viewthatithasbeenverysuccessfulinteachingadultsconversationalabilitywithmodernforeignlanguages,butnotwithclassicallanguages.Nodoubt,weagreewiththoseresearchersandteacherswhofocusontheimportanceofstudent’sinvolvement,whichmaycomethroughtheinductiveapproachofteaching.Wealsosharethemtheideathatstudentsshoulddependupontheirmentalabilityandpriorinformationasthisapproachmaysometimesrepresentakindofchallengeforlearners.1.4Comparison:theDeductiveandInductiveApproachesTeacher'approachesofteachingEnglishgrammarplayanimportantroleinclassroomswherestudentsshouldunderstandwhattheyaretaughtandhowtouseitcorrectly.Here,weareinterestedinthedeductiveandinductiveapproaches.Thisinterestleadsustoreviewsomepreviousstudieswhichcomparedbetweenthetwoofthem,orfocusedontheiradvantagesanddisadvantages.Incomparingbetweenthetwoapproaches,oneofthedifferencesisthatadeductiveapproachismostclosewiththegrammar-translationmethodofteachinglanguages,whileaninductiveapproachisconsideredclosetoaudio-lingualism,wheremeaningandgrammarinducedfrompracticewithexamplesinsituationsandsubstitutiontables(Gollin,1998).AccordingtoShaffer(1989)aninductiveapproachwasformerlyalwaysequatedwiththeaudio-lingualmethodofthesixties,definedashabit-formationunlesstheteachergavethestudentsattheendofthelessontheappropriaterule.Thesecondmaindifferencebetweenthesetwoapproachesisregardingthestepsorproceduresofeachone.Whereasthedeductiveapproachbeginswiththestepofintroducingrulesorprinciples,theinductiveapproachbeginswithlanguagecontextinvolvingapplicationofsuchrules.Inthedeductivesequence,ideasproceedfromgeneralizations,principles,rules,laws,propositions,ortheoriestospecificapplications.ThedeductivesequenceinvolvespresentinggeneralizationandthenseekingorprovidingexamplesasYounie(1974)states.Thethirddifferenceisrelatedtowhatisexplicitandimplicitofknowledgeorgrammarthroughtheteaching-learningprocess.DonateandAdair-Hauck(1992)relatebetweendeductiveapproachandexplicitexplanationsbytheteacher,andalsobetweenmodalitiesofinductiveapproachesandimplicitlearningbythestudent.Inacomparisonofexplicitandimplicitteachingstrategies,Chaudron(1988)pointsatthelargenumberofproduct-studiesthathaveinvestigatedtheeffectsofexplicitversusimplicitgrammarinstructiononachievementcallingtheimplicitapproach"patternpracticeorinductive".Inafollow-upstudy,however,Scott(1990)definestheexplicitstrategyasthe"deliberatestudyofagrammarrule,eitherbydeductiveanalysisorinductiveanalogy."Littlewood's(1975)viewpointisthattheapproachthatmakesthegrammarexplicitisoneofthesetwoways:1)whentheruleisregardedasasummaryofbehavior,whichcomesafterpresentingapieceoflanguage,andmaybeafterpracticingitforatime.2)when"commandoftherulethroughexplanationisregardedasthestarting-pointforlanguageuse",but"itdoesnotexcludeusinginductiveclassroomtechniques",whichmeansthatthegrammarexplicitcancomethroughthetwoapproaches.Ageisthefourthdifferenceorcontroversialissuediscussedbyscholars.Rivers(1975)findstheuseofthedeductiveapproachmostusefulformature,well-motivatedstudent,orforadultstudentinintensivecourses,andfindstheinductiveapproachmoreappropriateforyounglanguagelearners.Infact,wedon'tknowtheexactagessuggestedbyRiverswhorecommendsusingageasafactorofchoicebetweenthetwoapproaches.Buttimeisthefifthdifference,whichdistinguishesbetweenthetwoapproaches.Younie(1974)hypothesizesthatthedeductiveapproachisfasterandcanbeanefficientwaytoteachlargenumbersoffactsandconcretes.WeagreewithYouniethat"thedeductiveapproachsticksdirectlytothepoint,andsoitsavestime."Inotherwords,explainingtheofferedrulesorgeneralizationstakeslesstimethanleavingthemtobeelicitedbythelearnersthemselves.Therefore,thelearnershavemoretimeforpracticeorapplication.Thesixthdifferentfactorbetweenthedeductiveandtheinductiveapproachesisstudentinvolvement.Itisavailablewhenteachinginductivelybutpassiveratheractivewhenteachingdeductively(Shaffer1989).Thisconclusionisalsogivenbyotherresearchersorteacherswhoseethatinthedeductiveapproachtheteacherexplanationinaclassroomoftenminimizesstudentinvolvementandinteraction.Butintheinductiveapproachstudentsaremoreactivelyinvolvedinthelearningprocess,ratherthansimplypassiverecipients.Theseventhdifferenceorcontroversialfactorisrelatedtotheterms"easy"orsimpleand"difficult"orcomplex.ThesimilarityanddissimilaritybetweentherulesinthefirstlanguageandtherulesintheforeignlanguageshouldbetakenintoconsiderationTraditionally,deductiveapproachisusedtoteachgrammarbecauseitiseasytocontrol,andefficient,butitbecomesboringwhenusedrepeatedly.Inductiveapproach,ontheotherhand,isratherdemandingandrewarding,butitneedsmoretimeandmoreefforttocontrol.Fischer(1979)comestothecriteriathatiftheforeignlanguagegrammarruleissimplerthanthenativelanguagerule,thenaninductiveapproachisthemostappropriate;iftheforeignlanguageofequalorgreatercomplexitythanthenativelanguagerule,adeductiveapproachistobepreferred.2.MethodologyItisnoticedthatteachersofEnglishasaforeignlanguage(EFL)oftentendtouseadeductiveapproachinteachingpartsofspeechorgrammaticalstructures,thatis,bypresentingrulesbeforegivingexamples.Butthosewhowanttheirstudentstobecreativethroughtheirdeepthinkingtendtouseaninductiveapproach,thatis,bypresentingexamplesandaskingthestudentstoinducerulesbythemselves.We,asteachersofEFLaswellasresearchers,tendtousebothapproacheseclecticallyaccordingtocontentorgoalsorsituation.2.1QuestionsoftheStudyThisempiricalstudyfocusesontheeffectsofthedeductiveandinductiveapproachesofteachingthepassiveandtheactivevoiceforuniversitystudentsaslearnersofEFL.Thedeductiveapproachisbasedonprovidingthelearnerswithrulesandexplanationwithexamples.Buttheinductiveapproachisbasedongivingexampleswithoutprovidingthelearnerswithruleswheretheyshouldinducesuchrulesbythemselves.Thequestionsofthisstudyareasfollows:A.Isthereasignificantdifferencebetweentheresultsofthestudentstaughttheactiveandthepassivevoicebythedeductiveapproachandthosetaughtbytheinductiveapproach?B.Isthereasignificantdifferencebetweentheresultsoftheclassestaughttheactiveandthepassivevoicebythedeductiveapproach?C.Isthereasignificantdifferencebetweentheresultsoftheclassestaughttheactiveandthepassivevoicebytheinductiveapproach?2.2ParticipantsThisstudywasconductedintwouniversitiesinJordan:Al-Balqa'AppliedUniversityandJerashPrivateUniversity.Threeclasses(sections)ofstudentssharedinthestudy.TwoclassesfromAmmanFacultyofEngineeringTechnologyinthefirstuniversityandoneclassfromtheFacultyofArts(EnglishDepartment)intheseconduniversity.ThefirstclassconsistsoffreshmanstudentsstudyingEnglishskills99(ElementaryEnglishCourse);thesecondclassconsistsofjuniorstudentsstudyingEnglishskills102(IntermediateEnglishcourse);andthethirdclassconsistsoffreshmanstudentsstudyingEnglishskills101(Pre-intermediateEnglishcourse).Allthestudentsofthethreeclassesstudiedtheactiveandthepassivevoiceduringthesecondarystagewhentheyweresecondarystudents.Thestudentsofeachclassweredividedrandomlyintotwogroups:onegroupwastaughtthepassiveandtheactivevoiceby"deductiveapproach"andtheothergroupby"inductiveapproach",sowecallthem"deductivegroup"and"inductivegroup".Thosewhoweretaughtdeductivelywereexposedtospecificgrammaticalruleswheretheypaidconsciousattentiontolanguagesoastounderstandsuchrules.Butthosewhoweretaughtinductivelyweregivenexampleswithoutbeingexposedtosuchrules.Instead,theywerelefttoinducetherulesbythemselves.Alltogether,ninety-threestudentsfromthethreeclassesinthetwoJordanianuniversitiesparticipated.Thethreeclassesweredividedrandomlyintosixgroups.Theageofthestudentsrangedfromeighteentotwenty.Twoteacherswhoaretheresearchersofthisstudyparticipatedinthestudy.Itshouldbenoticedthattwostudentsdidn'tperformtheposttest,andsotheywerenotinvolvedintheresults.3.TestingApre-testwasusedasameansoffeasibleevaluation.Theparticipantscompletedthepretestafewdaysbeforebeingtaughttwolessonsabouttheactiveandthepassivevoice.Onegroupwastaughtdeductively,andtheothergroupinductively.Aposttestwascompletedbytheparticipantsaboutoneweekaftertheinstructionallessons.Allthepretestandposttestexamscompletedbythethreeclassestookplaceduringtimetableduniversitylecturehours.Theversionusedasapretestorasaposttestconsistedoftwomainquestions:thefirstwasamultiple-choicequestionwheretheparticipantsansweredtwentyitemsbycirclinga,b,cordthatrepresentsthebestanswer(distracter)andthesecondconsistedoftwentyitemsandwasaboutchangingtheactivevoicesentencesintothepassivevoicewhereverpossible.Thefullmarkforthefirstquestionwas40markswhereasitwas60marksforthesecondquestion.4.ConclusionandDiscussionThestatisticalresultsofthisstudyshowedthatstudentsinthedeductivegroupmadesignificantbettergainsthanthoseintheinductivegroupontheuseofthepassiveandtheactivevoice.TheseresultscametosupportAusubel(1974)andCarrol(1964)whoseideaisthatsinceadultsareendowedwithacognitivenetworkenablingthemtounderstandabstractconcepts,teachersshouldspeedupthelanguageacquisitionbygivingthelearnersexplicitrulesinadeductivelearningframework.SimilarresultsweregivenbyErlam(2003)revealingasignificantadvantageforthedeductiveinstructiongroup.Thestudyhighlightedthedifficultyofdesigninglanguagemeasuresthataccessimplicitlanguageknowledge.TheresultswhichshowedagreatereffectfordeductivethanforinductiveinstructionmadethisstudyincontrasttoideasinpapersforresearcherssuchasDulayandBurt(1973)andKrashen(1980)whobelievedthatteacherscouldprovidetheirstudentswithcomprehensiveinputwithoutaneedforexplicitrules.Wenoticedthatthedeductiveapproachgroupsshowedthattheywereabletoapplytherulesimmediatelyaftergivenwrittenquestionsandtheiranswerswereapproximatelyaccuratewhereastheinductiveapproachgroupneededmoretimetoanswerthequestionsduringthelessons.Itmaybearguedthatstudentsarenotinvolvedenoughwhenadeductiveapproachisused,butthisisuptotheteacherswhocanmaketheirinvolvementmorethroughdiscussingexerciseswiththeclass,givingthemenoughtimetothinkdeeplybeforechoosingthemostappropriateanswer.Thisminimizestheroleoftheteacher,whichiswell-knownasthecenteroftheclasswhenthetraditionaldeductiveapproachisused.Theconclusionofthestudymakesusagreewiththehypothesissayingthatwhenteachinggrammarforthesakeofgrammar,thedeductiveapproachhelpsmorethantheinductiveapproach.Wecanalsoclaimthatwritingalltherulesontheboard,givingthemodelanswersoftheexercisesanddiscussingthedifferencesandsimilaritieswiththeclassledtosuccessfullessontaughtdeductively.Thisstudyproposesbothapproachescanbeusedintheteaching-learningprocesses,butbeforeteachingtheactiveandpassivevoice,itseemedthatthedeductiveapproachwasmoreappropriatebecausethenatureofthecontentisbasedonthegrammaticalrulesoftheactiveandthepassivevoice.Butinothercases,particularly,whentheteaching-learningprocessofgrammariscomplexsomeimprovementsmightbeneeded,suchasintroducingconceptsusingacombinationofbothdeductiveandinductiveapproachesandreviewingpatternssoastoavoidanentirelylinearpresentation(SchrampferandSpack,2005).Regardingtheproblemthatapplyingrulesindicatesthatstudentsmaynotinfactfullyunderstandtheconceptsinvolvedwherethedeductiveapproachtendstoemphasizegrammarattheexpenseofmeaningandtopromotepassiveratherthanactiveparticipation(Shaffer),wewereabletosolvesuchaproblembyaskingthestudentsquestionsrelatedtothemeaningofactiveandpassivesentencesandwhyorwhenshouldweuseoneofthemandnottheothersoastokeepthebettermeaning.Amongotherreasonsbehindgettinghighermarksbythedeductivegroupisthatthedeductivegroupwereabletogetmorefeedbackwhencomparingtheiranswerswiththeteachersmodelanswersononehandandwiththegivenrulesontheotherhand.WeagreewithBluedorn,(1998)thatthedeductivemethodiseffectivetothedegreeitisclear,comprehensiveanddigestible,andRivers(1975),whofindstheuseofthedeductiveapproachmostusefulformature,well-motivatedstudents,orforadultstudentsinintensivecourses.