Email this article 
Hide
Show all
The Effect of Deductive vs. Inductive Grammar Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Spoken Accuracy and Fluency
Abstract
The efficacy of deductive vs. inductive techniques of grammar instruction is still a matter of heated debate, especially in EFL language teaching contexts. This study set out to examine whether or not these two types of teaching would differently affect EFL learners’ accuracy and fluency. To this end, a quasi-experimental study was carried out to compare the performances of two groups of pre-intermediate Iranian EFL students (i.e., deductive instruction group vs. inductive instruction group) on the fluent and accurate use of three English tenses, namely the simple present, present continuous and simple past, in oral picture description activities. The results indicated that although there was no significant difference between the groups in their oral fluency, there was a significant difference regarding their accurate use of two of the aforementioned tenses, suggesting that a deductive approach towards grammar instruction could have a more positive impact on EFL learners’ oral accuracy.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdolmanafi Rokni, S. J. (2009). Explicit grammar instruction. Language in India , 9, 117-128.
Berendse, E. (2012). A comparison between the effectiveness of inductive and deductive instruction in L2 English classroom in a L1 Dutch environment. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Language and Culture, Utrecht University.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Company.
Chalipa, S. (2013). The effect of inductive vs. deductive instructional approach in grammar learning of ESL learners. International Researchers, 2(2), 176-187.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and Explicit Learning. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Learning (pp. 313-348). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1-25.
El-Banna & Ibrahim, A. (1985). Deductive versus inductive teaching of grammar: An experimental investigation. [Abstract]. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 299824.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ellis, R. (2010). Does Explicit Grammar Instruction Work?. Ninjal Project Review, 2, 3-22.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 242–260.
Fahim, M. and Azarnioushi, S. (2011). The relationship between critical thinking and deductive/inductive teaching of grammar to Iranian EFL learners. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(2), 180-195.
Farrokhi, F. and Talabari, F.A. (2011). The study of the effectiveness of focus on form instruction on vocabulary and grammar learning. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(6), 237-252.
Gollin, J. (1998). Deductive vs. inductive language learning. ELT Journal, 52, 88-89.
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hwu, F. Sun, S. (2012). The aptitude-treatment interaction effects on the learning of grammar rules. System, 40, 505-521.
Kuder, E. (2009). Implications of an inductive versus deductive approach to SLA grammar instruction (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Delaware, USA.
Motha, H. (2013). The effect of deductive and inductive learning strategies on language acquisition (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tillburg University, Tillburg.
Nazari, N. (2012). The effect of implicit and explicit grammar instruction on learners achievements in receptive and productive modes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 156-162.
Rezaei, A. A. and Hosseinpur, R. M. (2011). On the Role of Consciousness-Raising Tasks in Learning Grammar: A Learner Perspective. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(2), 237-254.
Rose, K. R., & Ng, C. K. (2001). Inductive and deductive approaches to teaching compliments and compliment responses. In Rose, K. R. and Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, pp. 145-170. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Seliger, H. W. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 13, 1-18.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.
Shih, J. Y. (2008). Effects of inductive and deductive approaches in grammar instruction for junior high school students of differing English proficiency (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Pingtung institute of commerce, Taiwan.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 510-532.
Takimoto, M. (2005). Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on Japanese Learners’ Pragmatic Competence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University Graduate Board, Japan.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
Van Patten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. Van Patten (Ed.), From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition (pp. 187–205). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Xia, Z. H. (2005). The effectiveness of different grammar instructions. CELEA Journal Bimonthly, 28(1), 23-28.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.8
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.