Impact of Inductive and Deductive Pragmatic Instruction on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Grammar Awareness: A Study on Appropriateness and Accuracy
Subject Areas :
Fatemeh Mostafavi
1
,
Mohammadreza Khodareza
2
,
Davood Mashhadi Heidar
3
1 - Department of English Language, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekanon, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekanon, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekanon, Iran
Keywords: Deductive pragmatic instruction, inductive pragmatic instruction, grammatical accuracy, grammatical appropriateness,
Abstract :
This study investigates the effectiveness of inductive and deductive instruction methods on grammar accuracy and appropriateness among Iranian intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. sixty participants, selected from an initial population of 120 students at Zabanzara English Language Institute in Gilan based on their scores on the OPT English proficiency test, were divided into three groups: one receiving inductive grammar instruction, another receiving deductive instruction, and a control group adhering to traditional grammar teaching methods. Over ten weeks, participants underwent a pretest to establish baseline grammar awareness, followed by respective interventions for each group. Posttests assessed changes in grammatical performance, with statistical analyses—including paired samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA—employed to evaluate pre- and post-intervention results. The findings indicate significant improvements in grammatical skills for both experimental groups compared to the control group, suggesting that inductive and deductive teaching methods are more effective than traditional approaches. However, the results did not show statistically significant differences between the inductive and deductive groups. This research underscores the potential benefits of innovative pedagogical strategies in enhancing EFL learners' grammatical understanding. It is recommended that 1. EFL instructors teaching grammar classes should consider the integration of both inductive and deductive teaching methods in their English language instruction.
Adel, I. B., Beghdadi, A., & Madani, S. B. (2021). The impact of Integrating Pragmatics instruction in Grammar Teaching on EFL learners’ use of tenses. Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.35644/1713-012-001-014
Alzu’bi, M. A. (2015). Effectiveness of inductive and deductive methods in teaching grammar. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(2), 187-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.2p.187
Azkarai, A., Oliver, R., & Gil‐Berrio, Y. (2022). Examining Deductive Versus Guided Instruction From an Interactionist Perspective. Language Learning, 72 (S1), 125–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12482
Badpa, H. (2024). A New Perspective Towards Teaching Grammar: Inductive or Deductive? A Case Study of Iranian Elementary EFL Learners. International Journal of Language and Translation Research, 4(2), pp.29-44.
Benitez-Correa, C., Gonzalez-Torres, P., Ochoa-Cueva, C., & Vargas-Saritama, A. (2019). A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive Approaches for Teaching EFL Grammar to High School Students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12115a
Chen, X., & Xia, J. (2023). Effects of deductive and explicit‐inductive instruction on tertiary‐level Chinese learners’ use of English subjunctive as a pragmatic mitigator. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12496
Civelek, M., & Karatepe, Ç. (2021). The Impact of Student-Paced Pragmatics Instruction through Nearpod on EFL Learners’ Request Performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(6), 67. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.6.p.67
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Fatemipour, H., & Hemmati, S. (2015). Impact of Consciousness-Raising Activities on young English language learners’ grammar performance. English Language Teaching, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n9p1
Fithriani, R. (2022). Communicative Game-Based Learning in EFL Grammar Class: Suggested activities and students’ perception. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 5(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v5i2.509
Glaser, K. (2016). News from the pragmatics classroom: Contrasting the inductive and the deductive approach in the teaching of pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 529–561. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0023
Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the Elementary Foreign Language College classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb03202.x
Hamilton, V. (2011), "Oxford Modern English Grammar", Reference Reviews, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 30-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/09504121111168596
Hashemi, A, Daneshfar, S (2018). The Impact of Different Teaching Strategies on Teaching Grammar to College Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8, 340-348. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0803.10
Hwu, F., Pan, W., & Sun, S. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 294–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510381
Indriyani, C. E. (2021). Deductive and inductive instruction for teaching English grammar in the online classroom. Lire Journal (Journal of Linguistics and Literature), 5(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.33019/lire.v5i2.131
Isaee, H., & Barjesteh, H. (2024). Raising EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Competence via Teaching Compliments: The Case of Explicit vs Implicit Instruction in Focus. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 13, 2.
Karimi, M. N., & Abdollahi, S. (2020). L2 learners’ acquisition of simple vs. complex linguistic features across explicit vs. implicit instructional approaches: The mediating role of beliefs. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1179–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820921908
Kempson, R. (2017). Pragmatics. 415–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch20
Khezrlou, S. (2019). Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765
Kuntso, O. (2024). Applying pragmatic approach in EFL grammar instruction. Scientific Collection «InterConf+», (45 (201)), 186-193.
Lafta, N. H. (2019). The effect of deductive and inductive approaches on Iraqi EFL college students learning of grammar. University of Thi-Qar Journal, 14(3), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.32792/utq/utj/vol14/3/4
Latifah, N. W. (2023). Inductive and deductive approaches to teaching grammar for young learners at elementary school in East Lombok: A teacher’s perspective and practice. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 10(10), 69. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v10i10.5079
López, E. V., & Pérez, L. A. (2024). Implementing inductive grammar instruction with college students taking online English classes. Enletawa Journal, 17(1).
Mahjoob, E. (2015). A comparison of the effectiveness of inductive vs. deductive instruction of grammar to EFL students. Journal of language, linguistics, and literature, 1(5), 164-169.
Malla, A. Z., & Abbo, N. M. (2024). Efficiency of Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Teaching English Grammar: EFL Teachers’ Beliefs of “SUNRISE” Curriculum in Duhok High Schools. Journal of University of Raparin, 11(3), 283-301.
Mishra, N. R. (2023). Constructivist Approach to Learning: An Analysis of Pedagogical Models of Social Constructivist Learning Theory. Journal of Research and Development, 6(01), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227
Moghaddam, A. M., Azizmalayeri, F., & Bayat, A. (2022). Impact of Cognitive Complexity of Tasks on EFL Learners' Individual and Collaborative Written Performance. Language and Translation, 12(4), 131-142.
Musuña Masabanda, M. M., & Yugcha Tipan, J. E. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions about the difficulties in teaching grammar in an EFL context, at the Technical University of Cotopaxi (Bachelor's thesis, Ecuador: Pujili: Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi (UTC)).
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in a communicative context. Routledge.
Negahdaripour, S., & Amirghassemi, A. (2016). The effect of deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ spoken accuracy and fluency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 8-17.
Nezakat-Alhossaini, M., Youhanaee, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2014). Impact of explicit instruction on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge: A case of English relative clauses. DergiPark (Istanbul University).
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jlls/issue/9939/166834
Noveria, A. (2021). The effects of Inductive-Deductive Grammar instruction on students’ grammatical accuracy. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 4(3), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.34050/elsjish.v4i3.18123
Pardayevna, K. N. (2021). Farewell deductive teaching. the inductive approach in teaching esp (English for specific purposes). Academician: an international multidisciplinary research journal, 11(1), 79-84.
Pawlak, M. (2021). Teaching foreign language grammar: New solutions, old problems. Foreign Language Annals, 54(4), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12563
Pourmoradi, V., & Vahdat, S. (2016). The Interactive Relationship between Inductive- deductive Grammar Teaching, Gender and the Cognitive Style of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(11), 2151. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0611.12
Rajabi, S., & Farahian, M. (2013). The Effects of Pragmatic Instruction on EFL Learners' Awareness of Suggestions. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 3, 28.
Rezaei, A., & Mehraein, S. (2019). Implicit and Explicit Instruction and EFL Learners’ Implicit Knowledge Development: Evidence from Word Monitoring Task. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(22), 116–153. https://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3016-en.html
Saleem, N. A., Kausar, N. H., & Deeba, N. F. (2021). Social Constructivism: a new paradigm in teaching and learning environment. Perennial Journal of History, 2(2), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.52700/pjh.v2i2.86
Shahzad, S., Tahira, S. S., & Farooqi, S. M. (2020). Effect of inductive grammar instruction on the achievement of elementary school students. Global Social Sciences Review, V(II), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(v-ii).21
Shirav, A., & Nagai, E. (2022). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Grammar Instructions in Communicative Teaching. English language teaching, 15(6), 102-123.
Shirinbakhsh, S., Rasekh, A. E., & Tavakoli, M. (2016). Metapragmatic instruction (6Rs) versus input-based practice: a comparison of their effects on pragmatic accuracy and speed in the recognition and oral production of English refusals. Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 514–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1186722
Sik, K. (2015). Tradition or modernism in grammar teaching: deductive vs. inductive approaches. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2141-2144.
Stratton, J. M. (2023). Implicit and explicit instruction in the second language classroom: A study of learner preferences in higher education. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German/Die Unterrichtspraxis, 56(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.12263
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x
Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Bazhutkina, I., Steringa, S., Hummel, I., & Suhre, C. (2016). Comparing inductive and deductive grammatical instruction in teaching German as a foreign language in Dutch classrooms. System, 63, 101-114.
Tsai, K. J. (2019). Corpora and dictionaries as learning aids: Inductive versus deductive approaches to constructing vocabulary knowledge. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 805-826.
Valijärvi, R. & Tarsoly, E. (2015). Students’ perceptions of deductive and inductive methods in teaching reading skills. Language Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0009
Varsat, A. K. (2023). English Language Teaching with Deductive and Inductive Methods. Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching, 7(40). https://doi.org/10.54850/jrspelt.7.40.003
The Impact of Inductive and Deductive Pragmatic Instruction on
Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Grammar Awareness: A Study on Appropriateness and Accuracy
This study investigates the effectiveness of inductive and deductive instruction methods on grammar accuracy and appropriateness among Iranian intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. sixty participants, selected from an initial population of 120 students at Zabansara English Language Institute in Gilan based on their scores on the OPT English proficiency test, were divided into three groups: one receiving inductive grammar instruction, another receiving deductive instruction, and a control group adhering to traditional grammar teaching methods. Over ten weeks, participants underwent a pretest to establish baseline grammar awareness, followed by respective interventions for each group. Posttests assessed changes in grammatical performance, with statistical analyses—including paired samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA—employed to evaluate pre- and post-intervention results. The findings indicated significant improvements in grammatical skills for both experimental groups compared to the control group, suggesting that inductive and deductive teaching methods are more effective than traditional approaches. However, the results did not show statistically significant differences between the inductive and deductive groups. This research underscores the potential benefits of innovative pedagogical strategies in enhancing EFL learners' grammatical understanding. It is recommended that 1. EFL instructors teaching grammar classes should consider the integration of both inductive and deductive teaching methods in their English language instruction.
Keywords: Deductive pragmatic instruction, inductive pragmatic instruction, grammatical accuracy, grammatical appropriateness
Introduction
In the field of EFL education, acquiring knowledge is crucial for enhancing students' language proficiency (Fithriani, 2022). The strategies utilized to enhance knowledge of grammar can greatly influence the efficiency of language learning. A notable strategy that has sparked interest in academic discourse is using inductive and deductive methods in teaching grammar (Badpa, 2024). Inductive instruction, which is characterized by its exploratory nature, encourages learners to derive grammatical rules through exposure to authentic language contexts, thereby promoting deeper cognitive engagement (Benitez-Correa et al., 2019; López & Pérez, 2024). This methodology is grounded in constructivist learning theories that highlight the importance of learners actively constructing their knowledge. Furthermore, cognitive theories reinforce the notion that a learner-centered approach to discovery fosters more profound cognitive engagement and retention of grammatical principles, thereby improving learners' capacity to utilize language effectively in social contexts (Glaser, 2016; Tammenga-Helmantel et al., 2016).
In contrast, deductive instruction is characterized by the explicit presentation of grammatical rules, which is subsequently followed by opportunities for practice and application, thereby offering a more organized framework for learning. This method is rooted in behaviorist theories, which highlight the significance of repetition and reinforcement in the process of language acquisition (Azkarai et al., 2022; Malla & Abbo, 2024). Detractors of this instructional strategy contend that it may result in superficial understanding, where learners grasp the rules yet find it challenging to utilize them in genuine communicative contexts (Musuña Masabanda & Yugcha Tipan, 2024). Nevertheless, advocates argue that for certain individuals, especially those with pronounced analytical skills, a systematic introduction to grammatical concepts can enhance comprehension and support the prompt application of these rules (Kuntso, 2024).
As highlighted by Adel et al. (2021), empirical evidence indicates that pragmatic instruction positively influences the grammatical appropriateness and accuracy of language learners. Accuracy pertains to the correctness of language use, whereas appropriateness refers to language suitability in a given context (Alzu’bi, 2015; Pardayevna, 2021). According to Chen and Xia (2024), effective pragmatic instruction should ideally enhance grammatical appropriateness and accuracy, equipping learners with the tools necessary to navigate various communicative situations. They pointed out that a balanced integration of inductive and deductive methods can foster a more holistic understanding of grammar, allowing learners to recognize not only the structural rules but also the contextual nuances necessary for effective communication.
Studies have shown that this type of instruction can heighten learners' understanding and execution of speech acts and written texts resulting in enhancements in both grammatical appropriateness and accuracy (Rajabi & Farahian, 2013; Valijärvi & Tarsoly, 2015). Moreover, the integration of technology in self-paced pragmatic instruction has been identified as a beneficial tool in assisting learners in rectifying pragmatic errors and refining their techniques to utilize language appropriately, thereby contributing to improvements in both grammatical appropriateness and accuracy (Civelek & Karatepe, 2021; Shirinbakhsh et al., 2016).
According to Moghaddam et al. (2022) and Shahzad et al. (2020), learning English grammar presents a significant challenge for learners of EFL, particularly within the Iranian context, where pedagogical approaches to grammar instruction often vary in effectiveness. In the Iranian EFL context, where learners often face unique sociolinguistic challenges, investigating the impact of these instructional strategies is particularly pertinent. The cultural and educational background of Iranian EFL learners necessitates an approach that not only addresses grammatical accuracy but also emphasizes pragmatic appropriateness. Therefore, exploring the effects of inductive and deductive pragmatic instruction on grammar awareness provides valuable insights into optimizing language education for intermediate learners (Khezrlou, 2019; Negahdaripour & Amirghassemi, 2016).
Previous studies emphasize the significant impact of grammatical awareness on language proficiency, influencing both the understanding and expression of communication efforts (Fatemipour & Hemmati, 2015; Pawlak, 2021; Pourmoradi & Vahdat, 2016). Nevertheless, conventional grammar teaching methods have mainly focused on deductive approaches, involving pragmatic instruction of rules before their application. Conversely, there is a growing interest in inductive approaches, which prioritize discovery learning through exposure to real-life language usage, within the realm of language education (Benitez-Correa et al., 2019; Pawlak, 2021).
The impact of inductive and deductive pragmatic instruction on grammar awareness among Iranian EFL learners has not been extensively studied, despite the differences in methodologies. Previous research has primarily focused on grammar instruction in isolation, overlooking the potential relationship between pragmatic understanding and grammatical proficiency. As a result, there is a critical need to investigate how various instructional approaches influence learners' grammatical knowledge and pragmatic competence, which are crucial for effective communication.
This research attempts to address a notable deficiency in the current body of literature by investigating the unique impacts of inductive and deductive approaches to pragmatic instruction on the grammatical awareness of Iranian EFL learners. The objective was to ascertain which of these instructional methodologies could enhance learners' understanding and utilization of grammatical concepts by asking the following questions, thereby informing more effective pedagogical practices within EFL contexts.
RQ1: Does inductive pragmatic instruction affect Iranian intermediate EFL learners' awareness of appropriate and accurate grammar?
RQ2: Does deductive pragmatic instruction affect Iranian Intermediate EFL learners' awareness of appropriate and accurate grammar?
RQ3: Is there a distinction in the awareness of correct and appropriate grammar among Iranian Intermediate EFL learners that leads to differences in deductive, inductive, and conventional groups?
Literature review
At the forefront of this investigation is the theory of pragmatics, which underscores the significance of context in understanding and utilizing language. As defined by Kempson (2017), pragmatics is the study of how context influences the interpretation of meaning. In the realm of EFL instruction, pragmatic competence is crucial, as it encompasses linguistic knowledge and the ability to use language effectively in social contexts. This competence is enhanced through pragmatic instruction, which can be approached inductively or deductively (Isaee & Barjesteh, 2024).
Inductive instruction, grounded in the constructivist theory of learning, emphasizes the discovery of rules and patterns through exposure to language use in authentic contexts. According to Mishra (2023), this approach aligns with Krashen's Input Hypothesis, proposing that language acquisition is significantly facilitated when learners are exposed to comprehensible input. By engaging with real-life examples, students are encouraged to infer grammatical rules, potentially leading to deeper cognitive processing and heightened grammar awareness (Saleem et al., 2021).
Conversely, deductive instruction follows a more traditional pedagogical approach where rules and concepts are presented first, followed by practice and application. This method is underpinned by the cognitive theory of learning, which posits that learners can effectively internalize and apply grammatical structures when provided with clear explanations (Hwu et al., 2013; Varsat, 2023). Studies (e.g., Karimi & Abdollahi, 2020; Nezakat-Alhossaini et al., 2014; Rezaei & Mehraein, 2019; Stratton, 2023) suggest that pragmatic instruction aids learners in monitoring and correcting their linguistic output, thus fostering greater grammatical awareness.
Furthermore, in the context of Iranian EFL learners, this theoretical framework posits that both inductive and deductive pragmatic instruction can significantly enhance grammatical awareness, albeit through different cognitive pathways. The effectiveness of each method may depend on individual learner characteristics and contextual factors, necessitating a nuanced examination of their impacts.
Recent studies have highlighted the comparative efficacy of inductive versus deductive methods in fostering grammar awareness. For instance, a study conducted by Latifa (2023) explores the strategies of teaching grammar to young learners in three elementary schools. It found that two out of three teachers use fun activities to teach grammar implicitly, believing it helps learners learn better. The other teacher uses simple exercises. The study suggests an inductive implicit grammar approach for maximum language acquisition and emphasizes the importance of continuous progress monitoring to help learners achieve learning objectives on time. This research highlights the challenges faced by English teachers in teaching grammar to young learners.
In their exploration of deductive and inductive approaches, Hashemi and Daneshfar (2018) employed three distinct methods of grammar instruction: the deductive technique, the inductive technique, and the implicit technique. The findings from their research indicated varying levels of effectiveness across these instructional groups, with the Inductive group demonstrating superior performance compared to the others.
Further highlighting this distinction, Lafta (2019) and Noveria (2021) compared the effects of deductive and inductive approaches in teaching grammar. The results of both studies confirmed the positive effects of the inductive-deductive method. Also, Lafta’s (2019) study indicated slightly better performance and higher satisfaction in the group that taught grammar deductively compared to the group that taught grammar inductively.
Moreover, Kuntso's (2024) literature review explores communicative grammar in foreign language learning, analyzing various teaching methods and approaches. The study highlights the benefits of integrating grammar instruction into all EFL class activities, the positive role of context and pragmatics in language learning, and the importance of teaching grammar in context. It also discusses the disadvantages of traditional linear models, the role of real-life interactions, and the cognitive motivational connection between language construction and meaning in communicative grammar instruction.
Studies by Negahdaripour and Amirghassemi (2016) suggest that deductive pragmatic instruction may enhance EFL learners' accuracy in grammar use. On the other hand, research by Chen and Xia (2023) indicates that explicit-inductive instruction could lead to better retention of pragmatic knowledge in the long term. Additionally, Takimoto (2008) found that deductive and inductive approaches positively impacted learners' pragmatic competence, with deductive instruction showing immediate benefits but potential reduction in effects over time.
A notable investigation carried out by Shirav and Nagai (2022) involving 34 second-year Japanese students demonstrated that both inductive and deductive instructional methods were successful in teaching the passive voice. The findings indicated that the type of instruction significantly influenced learning outcomes; nonetheless, the group receiving inductive instruction exhibited superior performance on recognition assessments compared to their deductive counterparts.
Consequently, these studies collectively highlight the importance of considering deductive and inductive pragmatic instruction methods to cater to learners' preferences and optimize their grammar awareness.
Methodology
Investigating pedagogical approaches within the EFL context is essential for enhancing educational outcomes. This study aims to quantitatively assess the impact of both inductive and deductive methods of pragmatic instruction on the grammatical awareness of Iranian EFL learners. Employing a quasi-experimental research design, the research provides a systematic method for the collection and analysis of data.
Participants
The study involved a total of 60 participants selected from among 120 Iranian EFL learners enrolled in educational institutions in Gilan, specifically Zabansara. These participants were categorized into three distinct groups: two experimental groups, each subjected to either inductive or deductive teaching methodologies, and a control group that received conventional grammar instruction. The selection of the participants was based on their performance on the OPT English language proficiency test, which was utilized to guarantee that all individuals possessed a comparable foundation in English grammar.
Materials
The textbook "Oxford Modern English Grammar" was employed in grammar classes. Written by Val Hamilton in 2011 and published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited, it serves as an authoritative guide providing a comprehensive review of English grammar. It systematically presents essential English topics and demonstrates the practical application of grammar to address usage concerns and improve writing clarity. The book includes various examples of grammatical structures, self-study exercises, and classroom materials covering word structure and formation.
Instruments
In 2020, the Colombian higher education system integrated the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) to assess the English language skills of its students. The test had two main sections: Language Use and Listening. For the Language Use section, there was a specific emphasis on interpreting meanings that go beyond the immediate sentence. In addition to covering traditional grammar, vocabulary, and listening questions, the Language Use section required students to understand implied meanings within a given context. This approach aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the participants' language abilities by testing their capacity to understand subtle meanings in English.
The impact of teaching methods on grammar awareness was evaluated using the Oxford Practice Grammar Intermediate Tests as a pretest and posttest. These tests focused on assessing the accuracy and appropriateness of grammar, offering valuable insights into the effectiveness of the teaching strategies used. The Oxford Practice Grammar Intermediate Test consists of 100 questions, with odd-numbered questions (N=50) used as the pretest and even-numbered questions (N=50) as the posttest. The structured tasks in the pretest and posttest were specifically designed to target grammar structures relevant to the curriculum, enabling a systematic evaluation of participants' grammar skills over time.
Furthermore, OPT and Oxford Practice Grammar Intermediate Tests are reliable and valid assessments endorsed by the University of Oxford and developed by Oxford University Press.
Data Collection Procedures
To achieve the study's objectives, a series of systematic procedures were employed to collect the necessary data. Initially, a cohort of 120 English learners participating in intermediate English courses at the Zabansara English Language Institute in Gilan was selected. Following this, the OPT English Language Proficiency Test was conducted to establish a standardized measure and to accurately determine the proficiency levels of the participants. From this initial group, 60 students were chosen based on their scores, which were within one standard deviation of the mean. These selected students were subsequently organized into three distinct groups: one group received inductive instruction, another group underwent deductive instruction, and a third group was assigned to traditional grammar instruction as a control.
The study was conducted within a controlled setting over 10 weeks. To begin, a pretest was given to establish the baseline levels of grammar awareness among the participants. Following this, the two groups underwent instruction specific to their assigned methodology. The inductive group participated in contexts where grammar rules were inferred through exposure to language use, whereas the deductive group received pragmatic instruction on grammar rules, followed by practice exercises. The intervention consisted of two distinct experimental groups. Each group received instruction based on one of the two pedagogical methods: inductive or deductive. The inductive group engaged with grammar rules through contextualized examples and guided discovery, promoting exploration and critical thinking. In contrast, the deductive group was presented with grammar rules followed by practice exercises that reinforced the learned concepts. Meanwhile, the control group conventionally received instruction, adhering to the institute's standard curriculum. At the end of the intervention period, a posttest was administered to measure any changes in accuracy and appropriateness.
The primary instruments for data collection included pretest and posttest designed to measure learners' grammar awareness before and after the instructional intervention. The tests focused on various grammatical components, emphasizing both appropriateness in context and accuracy in language use. The tests were formulated in line with established language assessment standards to ensure their validity and reliability.
Following is the detail about the instructional intervention and collecting the necessary data for the study.
Phase 1: Preliminary Assessment
Before initiating the intervention, a preliminary assessment as a pretest was carried out to gauge the participants' initial levels of grammar awareness. This assessment included a diagnostic test that evaluated both the appropriateness in terms of social context and communicative function, as well as accuracy, which focused on the correct application of grammatical structures.
Phase 2: Instructional Sessions
The instructional phase lasted for 10 weeks, featuring two sessions per week for each group. Each session was meticulously planned as follows:
Inductive Group: The initial phase introduced specific grammatical structures through authentic texts, including dialogues and narratives. Learners engaged in guided discovery activities designed to encourage the identification of patterns and the formulation of rules collaboratively. This was followed by group discussions to reflect on the relevance of these rules across various contexts.
Deductive Group: This phase involved direct instruction on grammatical rules, delivered with clear explanations and examples. Learners had the opportunity to immediately practice applying these rules through sentence construction and error correction tasks. Individual feedback sessions were also part of this phase, aimed at addressing common challenges and reinforcing the learning outcomes.
Phase 3: Post-Intervention Assessment
Following the ten-week instructional period, participants underwent a post-intervention assessment identical to the preliminary evaluation. This assessed the changes in their grammar awareness, specifically in terms of appropriateness and accuracy. Noteworthy, each question was given one score.
Data Analysis
The quantitative dimension of the present study necessitates the utilization of both descriptive and inferential statistical methods to effectively respond to the research inquiries. Initially, descriptive statistics were computed, including the mean, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean for each of the three participant groups involved in the study. Subsequently, to assess the research questions and analyze the data derived from the pretest and posttest scores, a paired samples t-test was conducted to compare the results of the pretest and posttest between the two experimental groups. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA was applied to explore the variations in mean scores among the three groups, which were categorized according to the independent variables across all posttest assessments.
Results
To find the answers to the research questions, the researchers first administered the OPT to ensure the participants had a similar English language proficiency level. Then, they assessed the test results according to the criteria specified in the OPT guidelines. Table 1 indicates the groups' performance in the proficiency assessment.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Participants' Scores on OPT
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Minimum | Maximum | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
IEG | 20 | 45.4500 | 9.37789 | 2.09696 | 41.0610 | 49.8390 | 30.00 | 59.00 |
DEG | 20 | 44.3500 | 9.27518 | 2.07399 | 40.0091 | 48.6909 | 30.00 | 59.00 |
CG | 20 | 46.9000 | 7.89337 | 1.76501 | 43.2058 | 50.5942 | 34.00 | 60.00 |
Total | 60 | 45.5667 | 8.78629 | 1.13431 | 43.2969 | 47.8364 | 30.00 | 60.00 |
The data illustrated in Table 1 reveal that the scores for the three groups fall between 30 and 60. According to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) proficiency levels, the mean scores of these groups imply a proficiency level approximately at B1, signifying an intermediate level of English language proficiency.
Table 2
Tests of Normality on the OPT Scores
| Skewness | kurtosis | Kolmogorov- Smirnova | ||||
Statistic | Std. Error |
| Statistic Std. Error | Statistic | df | Sig. | |
Scores | -.069 | .309 |
| -1.134 .608 | .073 | 60 | .200 |
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance. | |||||||
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction | |||||||
The assessment of normality for the scores of the OPT groups is presented in Table 2. The findings reveal that both the skewness and kurtosis ratios are within the acceptable range of ±1, suggesting that the data adheres to a normal distribution. Additionally, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic surpasses the critical threshold of .05, further confirming that the scores conform to a normal distribution.
Table 3
Test of Homogeneity of Variances of OPT Scores
Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. |
.643 | 2 | 57 | .530 |
The results of Levene's test for homogeneity of variances are presented in Table 3. The analysis indicates that there is no evidence of unequal variances based on the statistical values: F (2, 57) = .643, p = .530.
Table 4
Results of One-Way ANOVA for the OPT Scores
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
Between Groups | 65.433 | 2 | 32.717 | .415 | .662 |
Within Groups | 4489.300 | 57 | 78.760 |
|
|
Total | 4554.733 | 59 |
|
|
|
The results derived from the one-way ANOVA analysis concerning the performance of the three groups in the OPT are detailed in Table 4. The calculated F-statistic of .415 indicates that the variance observed between the groups is not substantially greater than the variance found within the groups, thereby suggesting that the performance differences among the groups are negligible. Additionally, the p-value of .662, which is significantly above the conventional alpha level of 0.05, leads to the conclusion that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. This finding implies that there is no statistically significant difference in the performance levels of the three groups in the OPT.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of the Participants' Pretest and Posttest Scores on Grammar Test
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Minimum | Maximum | ||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||||||
Pretest | IEG | 20 | 19.2000 | 6.74810 | 1.50892 | 16.0418 | 22.3582 | 12.00 | 35.00 |
DEG | 20 | 23.7000 | 7.94786 | 1.77719 | 19.9803 | 27.4197 | 12.00 | 40.00 | |
CG | 20 | 22.4000 | 5.45218 | 1.21915 | 19.8483 | 24.9517 | 13.00 | 34.00 | |
Total | 60 | 21.7667 | 6.94376 | .89644 | 19.9729 | 23.5604 | 12.00 | 40.00 | |
Posttest | IEG | 20 | 40.0500 | 5.52006 | 1.23432 | 37.4665 | 42.6335 | 29.00 | 50.00 |
DEG | 20 | 44.1000 | 6.38172 | 1.42700 | 41.1133 | 47.0867 | 27.00 | 50.00 | |
CG | 20 | 33.9000 | 8.72926 | 1.95192 | 29.8146 | 37.9854 | 21.00 | 48.00 | |
Total | 60 | 39.3500 | 8.08393 | 1.04363 | 37.2617 | 41.4383 | 21.00 | 50.00 | |
*IEG: Inductive Group
*DEG: Deductive Group
*CG: Control Group
The descriptive statistics in Table 5 show the pretest and posttest scores of the participants. Upon analyzing the data, a noticeable improvement in the performance of both groups is evident from the initial assessment to the final evaluation.
Table 6
Tests of Normality for the Groups’ Pretest and Posttest Scores
|
| Skewness Statistics Std. Error | Kurtosis Statistics Std. Error | Kolmogorov-Smirnova Statistics df Sig. |
Pretest | IEG DEG CG | 1.092 .512 .684 .512 .589 .512 | .821 .992 -.478 .992 .277 .992 | .143 20 .200 .118 20 .200 .229 20 .007 |
Posttest | IEG DEG CG | -.159 .512 -1.430 .512 -.081 .512
| -.692 .992 1.367 .992 -1.405 .992 | .256 20 .001 .206 20 .026 .196 20 .043 |
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
The findings illustrated in Table 6 indicate that the skewness-to-kurtosis ratio is within the range of ±1, suggesting that the dataset conforms to a normal distribution. Additionally, the outcomes of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test surpass the significance threshold of .05, thereby reinforcing the hypothesis of normality in the score distributions.
In addressing the initial research question, paired samples t-tests were employed to assess the impact of inductive pragmatic instruction on the grammatical awareness of Iranian intermediate EFL learners, comparing pretest and posttest results within the first experimental group.
Paired Samples T-tests on the Participants' Scores Receiving Inductive Pragmatic Instruction
Paired Samples Statistics | |||||
| Mean | N | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
IEG | Pretest | 19.2000 | 20 | 6.74810 | 1.50892 |
posttest | 40.0500 | 20 | 5.52006 | 1.23432 | |
| Paired Differences | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | |||||
Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | ||||||
Lower | Upper | ||||||||
IEG | pretest posttest | -20.85000 | 8.62844 | 1.92938 | -24.88823 | -16.81177 | -10.807 | 19 | .000 |
The data illustrated in Table 7 indicates a significant improvement in the grammatical appropriateness and accuracy among participants who received inductive pragmatic instruction, identified as the first experimental group. The average score demonstrated a substantial rise from the pretest (M = 19.2000, SD = 6.74810) to the posttest (M = 40.0500, SD = 5.52006), yielding a t-value of -10.807 and a p-value of .000.
In addressing the second research question, paired samples t-tests were employed to assess the impact of deductive pragmatic instruction on the awareness of appropriate and accurate grammar among Iranian intermediate EFL learners, comparing results from the pretest to the posttest within the second experimental group.
Table 8
Paired Samples T-tests on the Participants' Scores Receiving Deductive Pragmatic Instruction
Paired Samples Statistics | |||||
| Mean | N | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
DEG | Pretest | 23.7000 | 20 | 7.94786 | 1.77719 |
posttest | 44.1000 | 20 | 6.38172 | 1.42700 | |
Paired Samples Test | |||||||||||||
| Paired Differences | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | |||||||||
Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | ||||||||||
Lower | Upper | ||||||||||||
DEG | pretest-posttest | -20.40000 | 11.47721 | 2.56638 | -25.77150 | -15.02850 | -7.949 | 19 | .000 | ||||
The data illustrated in Table 7 indicates a significant improvement in the grammatical appropriateness and accuracy among participants who received inductive pragmatic instruction, identified as the first experimental group. The average score demonstrated a substantial increase from the pretest (M = 23.7000, SD = 7.94786) to the posttest (M = 44.1000, SD = 6.38172), yielding a t-value of -7.949 and a p-value of .000.
To assess the impact of traditional grammar instruction on the control group, a paired sample t-test was performed to compare the pretest and posttest scores.
Table 9
Paired samples T-tests on the Participants' Scores Receiving Conventional Instruction in the Control Group
Paired Samples Statistics | |||||
| Mean | N | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
CG | Pretest | 22.4000 | 20 | 5.45218 | 1.21915 |
posttest | 25.5000 | 20 | 1.56693 | ||
Paired Samples Test | |||||||||||||
| Paired Differences | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | |||||||||
Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | ||||||||||
Lower | Upper | ||||||||||||
CG | pretest – posttest | -3.10000 | 7.85996 | 1.75754 | -6.77857 | .57857 | -1.764 | 19 | .094 | ||||
The results in Table 9 indicate that the control group exhibited a minimal statistical increase in scores from the pretest (M = 22.4000, SD = 5.45218) to the posttest (M = 25.5000, SD = 7.00751), with a t-value of t (19) = -1.764 and a p-value of .094.
To address the third research question and assess any significant differences in the performance among the three groups, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The inferential statistics about the pretest and posttest scores for the three groups are presented below.
Table 10
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
| Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. |
posttest | 2.538 | 2 | 57 | .088 |
The results shown in Table 10 demonstrate that Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance upheld the assumption of equal variances, as indicated by the statistics F (2, 57) = 2.538 and p = .088.
Table 11
Results of One-Way ANOVA For the Three Groups' Posttest Scores
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
posttest | Between Groups | 1055.100 | 2 | 527.550 | 10.737 | .000 |
Within Groups | 2800.550 | 57 | 49.132 |
|
| |
Total | 3855.650 | 59 |
|
|
| |
Table 11 reveals a statistically significant difference in the means across the three groups, with a significance level of .000, which is well below the 0.05 threshold. This indicates that each of the three instructional methods played a role in improving the grammatical correctness and precision of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Furthermore, to assess the relative effectiveness of each group, a series of multiple comparison analyses were performed.
Table 12
Scheffe Multiple Comparisons
| (I) group | (J) group | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||||
posttest | IEG | DEG | -4.05000 | 2.21658 | .073 | -8.4886 | .3886 |
CG | 6.15000* | 2.21658 | .007 | 1.7114 | 10.5886 | ||
DEG | IEG | 4.05000 | 2.21658 | .073 | -.3886 | 8.4886 | |
CG | 10.20000* | 2.21658 | .000 | 5.7614 | 14.6386 | ||
CG | IEG | -6.15000* | 2.21658 | .007 | -10.5886 | -1.7114 | |
DEG | -10.20000* | 2.21658 | .000 | -14.6386 | -5.7614 | ||
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. | |||||||
In Table 12, the outcomes of Scheffe multiple comparisons are displayed. As per the findings, there is no notable difference in the comparison between DEG and IEG (p = 0.073).
Comparing DEG with the control group reveals a significant contrast, as DEG exhibits a mean that is notably higher than that of CG (p < 0.001). In general, both experimental groups (IEG and DEG) demonstrate significantly higher mean scores than the control group (CG). Notably, DEG displays an even larger mean distinction than IEG. These findings indicate that the experimental treatments administered in IEG and DEG have a substantial impact on the measured outcome in comparison to the control condition.
Discussion and Conclusion
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of inductive and deductive approaches to pragmatic teaching on the comprehension of grammatical appropriateness and accuracy among Iranian intermediate learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The findings indicated that participants in the experimental groups exhibited a notable enhancement in their test scores from the pre-study phase to the post-study phase, in contrast to the control group. This suggests that both inductive and deductive grammar instruction significantly influenced the learners' understanding of grammatical competencies. Nevertheless, the analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in performance between the inductive and deductive instructional methods. Furthermore, it was determined that both approaches were more effective than traditional grammar teaching methods in fostering improvements in grammatical appropriateness and accuracy.
Thus, this outcome supported various types of research on enhancing English language grammatical accuracy and appropriateness in EFL classes as conducted by Alzu’bi (2015), Badpa (2024), Benitez-Correa et al. (2019), López and Pérez (2024), and Malla and Abbo (2024), who asserted that using deductive pragmatic grammar instruction can aid students in comprehending concepts, understanding pragmatic grammar, and complex structures. Additionally, utilizing inductive instruction can help students discover grammatical rules through examples and patterns, engaging them in active learning and critical thinking, promoting deeper understanding as learners naturally derive rules, and can be more enjoyable and motivating for students.
The current investigation's findings align with Lafta's (2019) research, which indicated that tailoring instruction to students' needs using deductive and inductive approaches can cater to diverse learning styles and enhance grammatical accuracy and appropriateness. The findings of this study are consistent with the research conducted by Pourmoradi and Vahdat in 2016, which showed that there was no significant difference in grammar learning between participants who used inductive and deductive methods. Both methods were found to be more beneficial compared to traditional instruction. However, some studies have indicated that inductive grammar instruction is more effective in EFL classes (Haight et al., 2007; Latifah, 2023; Shirav & Nagai, 2022; Tammenga-Helmantel et al., 2016), while others have indicated that deductive grammar instruction is superior to inductive (Ellis, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Indriyani, 2021; Tsai, 2019).
The results of this investigation stand in contrast to the study conducted by Mahjoob (2015), which analyzed the effectiveness of inductive compared to deductive grammar instruction for EFL learners. Mahjoob's research indicated that, despite minor differences in the average performance of the two instructional groups, there was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of inductive and deductive grammar teaching methods. Furthermore, Sik's (2015) study suggests that deductive grammar instruction may offer a slight advantage over inductive methods regarding students' academic performance, although this difference also lacks statistical significance.
Implications of the Study
Incorporating both inductive and deductive teaching methods in their classrooms is something EFL instructors teaching grammar classes should consider. Inductive approaches tend to be more engaging for students as they actively participate in discovering and formulating rules, leading to a more dynamic learning process in terms of student engagement and motivation. When students are encouraged to observe and analyze how grammar is used in context, it can result in a deeper understanding of the language's structure and function. Inductive learning fosters critical thinking because students are required to analyze data, recognize patterns, and draw conclusions based on their observations. Moreover, working with real language examples can enhance students' ability to use grammar in real communication situations. Research indicates that rules discovered through inductive reasoning may be better retained over time because students have contributed to their understanding rather than just memorizing rules. Additionally, the instruction typically occurs in a contextualized manner, making it easier for students to see the relevance of grammar to their language use.
When teachers employ deductive teaching methods, they provide clear rules upfront, giving students a solid framework that can facilitate comprehension and learning, especially for complex grammatical structures. Deducing rules for certain grammatical points can be more time-efficient, enabling teachers to cover more material in a shorter time frame. With deductive instruction, students can immediately apply the rules in controlled exercises, making it easier for them to grasp how to use grammar correctly. Some learners may prefer the structure that comes with deductive instruction, making it beneficial for students who thrive on guidelines. After learning the rules, students can quickly integrate grammar practice with reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks. Deductive instruction allows for quick checks of understanding, as teachers can assess students' comprehension of the rules through practice exercises immediately after instruction.
Limitations of the Study
The research in question had specific limitations that require careful consideration. To begin with, it neglects to explore potential gender variations and their impact on grammar learning outcomes, despite the recognized influence of gender on learning styles and interactions with grammatical concepts. Moreover, the study concentrates solely on learners at the intermediate level, leaving unresolved questions about the suitability of its instructional approaches for EFL learners at various proficiency levels, including beginners or advanced students. Additionally, the research does not consider individual participant factors like aptitude, motivation, and attention, which are known to significantly affect learning outcomes and grammatical awareness, thus limiting the scope of the findings. Finally, by implementing the inductive and deductive instructional methods separately in different classes, the study fails to acknowledge the potential benefits of a combined teaching approach, a strategy recommended by experts such as Noveria (2021) for enhancing grammar learning.
Suggestions for Further Research
To address the limitations identified in this study, several suggestions for further research can enhance our understanding of grammar awareness in EFL contexts. First, future studies must examine gender differences to assess how gender influences grammar learning outcomes among EFL learners, thereby providing insights into the effectiveness of various instructional methods based on gender. Additionally, incorporating participants from diverse proficiency levels—beginner, intermediate, and advanced—will help determine the applicability of current findings across different stages of language acquisition. Furthermore, research should adopt qualitative methodologies to explore individual factors such as learner motivation, aptitude, and attention, as understanding these variables could inform more personalized and effective teaching strategies. Additionally, future studies may benefit from investigating the combined effects of inductive and deductive instructional approaches within a single class or curriculum, utilizing a mixed-methods design to evaluate the collective impact on grammar awareness. Finally, conducting longitudinal studies would offer valuable insights into the development of grammar awareness over time with different teaching methods, enabling researchers to understand the long-term effects of inductive and deductive approaches on EFL learners. By addressing these limitations and implementing these research suggestions, future studies can significantly contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between teaching methodologies and grammar awareness in English as a Foreign Language settings.
References
Adel, I. B., Beghdadi, A., & Madani, S. B. (2021). The impact of Integrating Pragmatics instruction in Grammar Teaching on EFL learners’ use of tenses. Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.35644/1713-012-001-014
Alzu’bi, M. A. (2015). Effectiveness of inductive and deductive methods in teaching grammar. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(2), 187-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.2p.187
Azkarai, A., Oliver, R., & Gil‐Berrio, Y. (2022). Examining Deductive Versus Guided Instruction From an Interactionist Perspective. Language Learning, 72 (S1), 125–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12482
Badpa, H. (2024). A New Perspective Towards Teaching Grammar: Inductive or Deductive? A Case Study of Iranian Elementary EFL Learners. International Journal of Language and Translation Research, 4(2), pp.29-44.
Benitez-Correa, C., Gonzalez-Torres, P., Ochoa-Cueva, C., & Vargas-Saritama, A. (2019). A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive Approaches for Teaching EFL Grammar to High School Students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12115a
Chen, X., & Xia, J. (2023). Effects of deductive and explicit‐inductive instruction on tertiary‐level Chinese learners’ use of English subjunctive as a pragmatic mitigator. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12496
Civelek, M., & Karatepe, Ç. (2021). The Impact of Student-Paced Pragmatics Instruction through Nearpod on EFL Learners’ Request Performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(6), 67. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.6.p.67
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Fatemipour, H., & Hemmati, S. (2015). Impact of Consciousness-Raising Activities on young English language learners’ grammar performance. English Language Teaching, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n9p1
Fithriani, R. (2022). Communicative Game-Based Learning in EFL Grammar Class: Suggested activities and students’ perception. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 5(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v5i2.509
Glaser, K. (2016). News from the pragmatics classroom: Contrasting the inductive and the deductive approach in the teaching of pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 529–561. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0023
Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the Elementary Foreign Language College classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb03202.x
Hamilton, V. (2011), "Oxford Modern English Grammar", Reference Reviews, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 30-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/09504121111168596
Hashemi, A, Daneshfar, S (2018). The Impact of Different Teaching Strategies on Teaching Grammar to College Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8, 340-348. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0803.10
Hwu, F., Pan, W., & Sun, S. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 294–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510381
Indriyani, C. E. (2021). Deductive and inductive instruction for teaching English grammar in the online classroom. Lire Journal (Journal of Linguistics and Literature), 5(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.33019/lire.v5i2.131
Isaee, H., & Barjesteh, H. (2024). Raising EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Competence via Teaching Compliments: The Case of Explicit vs Implicit Instruction in Focus. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 13, 2.
Karimi, M. N., & Abdollahi, S. (2020). L2 learners’ acquisition of simple vs. complex linguistic features across explicit vs. implicit instructional approaches: The mediating role of beliefs. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1179–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820921908
Kempson, R. (2017). Pragmatics. 415–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch20
Khezrlou, S. (2019). Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765
Kuntso, O. (2024). Applying pragmatic approach in EFL grammar instruction. Scientific Collection «InterConf+», (45 (201)), 186-193.
Lafta, N. H. (2019). The effect of deductive and inductive approaches on Iraqi EFL college students learning of grammar. University of Thi-Qar Journal, 14(3), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.32792/utq/utj/vol14/3/4
Latifah, N. W. (2023). Inductive and deductive approaches to teaching grammar for young learners at elementary school in East Lombok: A teacher’s perspective and practice. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 10(10), 69. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v10i10.5079
López, E. V., & Pérez, L. A. (2024). Implementing inductive grammar instruction with college students taking online English classes. Enletawa Journal, 17(1).
Mahjoob, E. (2015). A comparison of the effectiveness of inductive vs. deductive instruction of grammar to EFL students. Journal of language, linguistics, and literature, 1(5), 164-169.
Malla, A. Z., & Abbo, N. M. (2024). Efficiency of Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Teaching English Grammar: EFL Teachers’ Beliefs of “SUNRISE” Curriculum in Duhok High Schools. Journal of University of Raparin, 11(3), 283-301.
Mishra, N. R. (2023). Constructivist Approach to Learning: An Analysis of Pedagogical Models of Social Constructivist Learning Theory. Journal of Research and Development, 6(01), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227
Moghaddam, A. M., Azizmalayeri, F., & Bayat, A. (2022). Impact of Cognitive Complexity of Tasks on EFL Learners' Individual and Collaborative Written Performance. Language and Translation, 12(4), 131-142.
Musuña Masabanda, M. M., & Yugcha Tipan, J. E. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions about the difficulties in teaching grammar in an EFL context, at the Technical University of Cotopaxi (Bachelor's thesis, Ecuador: Pujili: Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi (UTC)).
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in a communicative context. Routledge.
Negahdaripour, S., & Amirghassemi, A. (2016). The effect of deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ spoken accuracy and fluency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 8-17.
Nezakat-Alhossaini, M., Youhanaee, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2014). Impact of explicit instruction on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge: A case of English relative clauses. DergiPark (Istanbul University).
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jlls/issue/9939/166834
Noveria, A. (2021). The effects of Inductive-Deductive Grammar instruction on students’ grammatical accuracy. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 4(3), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.34050/elsjish.v4i3.18123
Pardayevna, K. N. (2021). Farewell deductive teaching. the inductive approach in teaching esp (English for specific purposes). Academician: an international multidisciplinary research journal, 11(1), 79-84.
Pawlak, M. (2021). Teaching foreign language grammar: New solutions, old problems. Foreign Language Annals, 54(4), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12563
Pourmoradi, V., & Vahdat, S. (2016). The Interactive Relationship between Inductive- deductive Grammar Teaching, Gender and the Cognitive Style of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(11), 2151. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0611.12
Rajabi, S., & Farahian, M. (2013). The Effects of Pragmatic Instruction on Efl Learners' Awareness of Suggestions. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 3, 28.
Rezaei, A., & Mehraein, S. (2019). Implicit and Explicit Instruction and EFL Learners’ Implicit Knowledge Development: Evidence from Word Monitoring Task. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(22), 116–153. https://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3016-en.html
Saleem, N. A., Kausar, N. H., & Deeba, N. F. (2021). Social Constructivism: a new paradigm in teaching and learning environment. Perennial Journal of History, 2(2), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.52700/pjh.v2i2.86
Shahzad, S., Tahira, S. S., & Farooqi, S. M. (2020). Effect of inductive grammar instruction on the achievement of elementary school students. Global Social Sciences Review, V(II), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(v-ii).21
Shirav, A., & Nagai, E. (2022). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Grammar Instructions in Communicative Teaching. English language teaching, 15(6), 102-123.
Shirinbakhsh, S., Rasekh, A. E., & Tavakoli, M. (2016). Metapragmatic instruction (6Rs) versus input-based practice: a comparison of their effects on pragmatic accuracy and speed in the recognition and oral production of English refusals. Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 514–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1186722
Stratton, J. M. (2023). Implicit and explicit instruction in the second language classroom: A study of learner preferences in higher education. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German/Die Unterrichtspraxis, 56(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.12263
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x
Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Bazhutkina, I., Steringa, S., Hummel, I., & Suhre, C. (2016). Comparing inductive and deductive grammatical instruction in teaching German as a foreign language in Dutch classrooms. System, 63, 101-114.
Valijärvi, R. & Tarsoly, E. (2015). Students’ perceptions of deductive and inductive methods in teaching reading skills. Language Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0009
Varsat, A. K. (2023). English Language Teaching with Deductive and Inductive Methods. Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching, 7(40). https://doi.org/10.54850/jrspelt.7.40.003