Inductive and deductive methods of teaching grammar

There are two main ways that we tend to teach grammar: deductively and inductively. Both deductive and inductive teaching have their pros and cons and which approach we use when can depend on a number of factors, such as the nature of the language being taught and the preferences of the teacher and learners. It is, however, perhaps generally accepted that a combination of both approaches is best suited for the EFL classroom. Inductive and deductive approaches to teaching grammar have been studied since the beginning of the 20th century and continue to be the subject of experimental studies in the 21st century.

A large and growing body of literature has investigated the effects of deductive and inductive approaches on the acquisition of various grammatical structures. Deductive teaching is a traditional approach in which information about target language and rules are driven at the beginning of the class and continued with examples. The principles of this approach are generally used in the classes where the main target is to teach grammar structures. For instance, these principles are convenient for the classes that grammar translation method is applied. A deductive approach is based on the top-down theory which the presentation and explanation of grammar rules take the precedence over teaching.

These two approaches have been applied to grammar teaching and learning. A deductive approach involves the learners being given a general rule, which is then applied to specific language examples and honed through practice exercises. An inductive approach involves the learners detecting, or noticing, patterns and working out a ‘rule’ for themselves before they practise the language.

– Thornbury, 1999

Both approaches are commonplace in published materials. Some course books may adhere to one approach or the other as series style, whereas some may be more flexible and employ both approaches according to what the language being taught lends itself to. Most inductive learning presented in course books is guided or scaffolded. In other words, exercises and questions guide the learner to work out the grammar rule. The following course book extracts illustrate the two different approaches. The subsequent practice exercises are similar in both course books. Inductive

The inductive teaching approach in TESOL is a sort of discovery learning that focuses on the student. For example, an instructor might use or show a few examples of a grammar point in English and then ask students what they notice. In many cases, the grammar point might be introduced by simply engaging the students in a directed conversation to slowly introduce it. The teacher guides the students to noticing the grammar pattern, and finally explicitly exposes them to it.

Example

A teacher writes on the board a few examples of simple present and simple past sentences. The teacher then asks the students what differences they notice in the sentences. The students discuss the differences and maybe even try converting some simple sentences from present to past on their own. Finally, the teacher explains the rule for converting sentences from past to present.

Pros and cons of an inductive approach to grammar teaching An inductive approach starts with some examples from which a rule is inferred. It is also called discovery learning. There are several advantages of this approach. First, rules learners discover for themselves are more likely to fit their existing mental structures than rules they have been presented with. Second, the mental effort involved ensures a greater degree of cognitive depth which again, ensures greater memorability. Third, students are more actively involved in the learning process rather than being simply passive recipients. Forth, it is an approach which favors pattern-recognition and problem-solving abilities. Fifth, if the problem-solving is done collaboratively and in the target language, learners get the opportunity for extra language practice. Finally, working things out for themselves prepares students for greater self-reliance and is conducive to learner autonomy. However, there are several disadvantages as well. First, the time and energy spent in working out rules may mislead students into believing that rules are the objective of language learning rather than a means. Second, the time taken to work out a rule may be at the expense of time spent in putting the rule to some sort of productive practice. Third, students may hypothesize the wrong rule, or their version of the rule may be either too broad or too narrow in its application. Forth, it can place heavy demands on teacher in planning a lesson. Fifth, however carefully organized the data is, many language areas such as aspect and modality resist easy rule formation. Finally, inductive approach frustrates students who would prefer simply to be told the rule.

Deductive

A teacher writes examples of simple present and simple past sentences on the board. The teacher then proceeds to explain the differences between present and past in English. Once the lecture is complete, worksheets are handed out and students are asked to convert simple sentences from present to past.

In contrast to deductive approach, in the inductive approach represents a different style of teaching where the new grammatical structures or rules are presented to the students in a real language context. The students learn the use of the structure through practice of the language in context, and later they realize the rules from the practical examples. It means from specific to general. For example, if the structure to be represented is the preposition the teacher would begin the lesson by showing a picture of flat and saying, “ This is my room and it is comfortable. There is a book on the table, there are six chairs near the table.” The teacher would then provide many examples using students and items from the classroom, hotels, living rooms or anything within the normal daily life of the students, to create an understanding of the use of the structure. After each of the various examples students practice the structures meaningfully in small groups or pairs. Fluency is emphasized than accuracy. Because according to Bob Adamson, The deductive method is often criticized because:

• a)    It teaches grammar in an isolated way;

• b)    Little attention is paid to memory;

• c)    Practice is often mechanical.

It’s a good opportunity in order to improve the learner’s communicative skills. With this approach, the teacher role is to provide meaningful contexts to encourage demonstration of the rule. As Benjamin Franklin mentioned: “Tell me, then I forget, teach me then I remember, involve me and I learn”. Yes, if we involve our learners to learn the language through different types of activities, they’ll learn with a great interest. As we know practice makes perfect. You can explicitly confirm the rules the students have discovered. You will not have told them these rules, you will merely guided the class towards them. So it also promotes increased student participation and practice of the target language in the classroom, in meaningful contexts. The use of the inductive approach has been noted for its success in classrooms world-wide, but its disadvantage is that it’s sometimes difficult or students who expect a more traditional style of teaching to induce the long rules from context and that it is more time consuming. Except that, with the help of this method students will improve their transferable skills, which they use in a real life situation, such as: communicative skill ↓ problem solving skills ↓ decision making skills ↓ time management skill ↓ autonomy skill ↓ critical thinking skills ↓ presentation skills ↓ leadership skills.

In general, inductive techniques tend to adopt a naturalistic approach, while deductive methods mostly entail raising learners` consciousness of a particular feature. The relative merits and demerits of inductive and deductive methods of teaching grammar have been researched rather exhaustively in both societies where English is predominantly spoken and countries where it is spoken as a second language. The problem is that the findings of such studies are not truly generalizable to parts of the world where English is considered a foreign language. Furthermore, despite this large volume of research, it can be seen that there is little agreement in this regard. Some studies have pointed to the superiority of deductive methods, while others have made a compelling case for inductive approaches. It was found that those learners who had been taught grammar deductively demonstrated significantly higher levels of accuracy than their peers who had been provided with inductive instruction.