Inductive vs. Deductive Grammar Instruction and the Grammatical Performance of EFL Learners
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
فاطمه بهجت
1
(
Islamic Azad University Abadeh Branch
)
کلید واژه: gender, foreign language learning, Inductive Grammar Teaching, Deductive Grammar Teaching, Knowledge of Grammar,
چکیده مقاله :
Learning a foreign language offers a great challenge to students since it involves learning different skills and subskills. Quite a few number of researches have been done so far on the relationship between gender and learning a foreign language. On the other hand, two major approaches in teaching grammar have been offered by language experts, inductive and deductive. The present study examines which method of teaching grammar is more fruitful for Iranian male and female students. For this purpose, 150 freshman students, 110 females and 40 males, majoring in English were selected from all available students at Abadeh and Shiraz Azad universities. All the subjects took the NTC's grammar test prior to the instruction as pre-test. Then, they were divided into two groups and were taught grammar inductively and deductively in each group for one semester. At the end of the instruction, the same test was taken as post-test. The comparison between the students' pre and post-test indicated that there was a significant improvement in their knowledge of grammar. By the way, through a two-way ANOVA, it was found out that males learned grammar better when they were taught inductively and females showed a better performance when they were taught deductively.
یادگیری یک زبان خارجی مستلزم فراگیری مهارتهای گوناگون اصلی و فرعی است. یکی از آنها دستور زبان می باشد. صرفنظر از نظریه های مبتنی بر اجتناب از تدریس گرامر، مجزا از دیگر مهارتهای اصلی مانند مهارت گویایی و نوشتاری دو شیوه رایج از قدیم الایام جهت تدریس گرامر مورد استفاده قرار گرفته است.: استقرایی و استنتاجی. بسیاری از نظریه پردازان معتقدند که شیوه استنتاجی برای یادگیری دستور زبان موثرتر از دیگری است. طبق گفته براون(2002) یکی از عوامل موثر در یادگیری بهترگرامربه شیوه استقرائی یااستنتاجی جنسیت است. دراین تحقیق سئوالی که مطرح میشود این است که اولا آیا ارتباطی بین تدریس گرامروجود دارد یانه و دوما بادرنظرگرفتن جنسیت فراگیر کدام شیوه تدریس برای دختران وکدامیک برای پسران کارآئی بهتری دارد. بدین منظور150دانشجوی سال اول زبان که 110 نفر آنها دختر وبقیه پسربودند ازبین کلیه دانشجویان سال اول دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد آباده وشیراز انتخاب شدند. درابتدا آزمون استاندارد NTC به عنوان پیش آزمون گرفته شد. سپس فراگیران به دوگروه تقسیم شدند: گروه اول به شیوه استنتاجی ودیگری به شیوه استقرائی به مدت 4 ماه آموزش دیدند . درپایان دوره، پس آزمونی جهت مقایسه نمرات اولیه ونهائی گرفته شد. بااستفاده از t-test و two-way ANOVA وتجزیه وتحلیل داده ها مشخص شد که بین تدریس گرامر وجنسیت رابطه وجود دارد وبه علاوه شیوه استنتاجی برای پسران واستقرائی برای دختران کارآمدتربوده است .
Bacon, D. (1998). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. Modern Language Journal 76, pp. 160-174.
Baker, C. S. & ManIntyre, D. P. (1997). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language Learning 50(2), pp. 65-963.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles, an interactive approach to language Pedagogy (2nd ed). London: Longman. Chap 20, pp.362-80.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills, theory and practice (3rd ed). New York: HBJ publications. Chap 2, pp38-40.
Canale, M. A. & Swain, S. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching andtesting. Applied linguistics 1(1): 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 459-480.
DeKeyser, M. R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: an experiment with a miniature linguisticsystem. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. vol. 17, no.3, pp. 379-410.
Ediger, M. ( 1983). Issues in curriculum. ERIC - Education Resources Information Center.htm.
El-Banna.I. A. (1985). Deductive versus inductive teaching of grammar: an experimental investigation. ERIC-Education Resources Information Center.htm.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 83-107.
Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar conscious-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28, pp. 323-51.
Fotos, S. S & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: a task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly25, pp.605-28.
Haight, C., Herron, C, & Cole, P. S. (2007). The effects of deductive and inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 288-310.
Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. (1979). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mitchel, T. J. & Remond, L. M. (1993). Rethinking grammar and communication. Language Annuals, vol.26, no.1, pp. 13-19.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective. ELT Journal, vol. 58, no.3, pp. 228-237.
Nitta, R. & Gardner, Sh. (2005). Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, vol. 59, no.1, pp. 3-13.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 learning. Language Learning 53(4), pp. 649-702.
Rivers, W. (1987). Interactive language teaching. New York: CUP.
Saffer, C.(1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modern Language Journal, vol. 73, no.4, pp.395-403.
Thomas, W. E. (1970). A comparison of inductive and deductive teaching methods in college freshman remedial English. ERIC - Education Resources Information Center.htm.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching, practice and theory. Cambridge: CUP., pp.77-85.
Weatherford, J. H. (1997). Issues in the teaching of grammar in a foreign language. ERIC - Education Resources Information Center.htm.
