i
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
THE EFFECT OF INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE APPROACHES OF TEACHING
GRAMMAR ON GRADE ELEVEN STUDENTS’ GRAMMATICAL PERFORMANCE
AT AWEDAY SECONDARY SCHOOL
MA Thesis
Misrak Weldegiorgis
June, 2015
HARAMAYA, ETHIOPIA
i
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
THE EFFECT OF INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE APPROACHES OF
TEACHINGGRAMMAR ON GRADE ELEVEN STUDENTS’ GRAMMATICAL
PERFORMANCE AT
AWEDAY SECONDARY SCHOOL
A Thesis Submitted to the College of Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Graduate
Studies, Haramaya University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree for Master of Art in Teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
BY
Misrak Weldegiorgis
Major advisor: Wondifraw Mihret (Ass.Prof.)
Co Advisor: Sanjay Kumar (Dr)
June, 2015
Haramaya University
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
ii
As thesis research advisors, we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated thesis prepared,
under our guidance, by Misrak Weldegiorgis, entitled “Effect of Inductive and Deductive
Approaches of Teaching Grammar on students’ grammatical performance at Aweday
Secondary School.” And we recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement
for the degree of MA in TEFL.
Mr. Wondifraw Mihret (Ass.Prof.)
_________
Name of Major Advisor
Signature
Dr. Sanjay Kumar
Name of Co-Advisor
_____________
__________
Date
_______________
Signature
Date
As members of the examining board of the final M.A thesis open defense, we certify that we
have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by MisrakWeldegiorgis and examined the
candidate. We recommended that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement
for the Degree of Master of ART in TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language).
__________________
Name of Chairperson
___________
Signature
___________________
___________
Name of Internal Examiner
Signature
______________
Date
______________
Date
___________________
__________
_______________Name of External Examiner
Signature
Date
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my family for nursing me with affection and love and for
their dedicated and tireless support in the success of my life.
iii
iv
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
First, I declare that this thesis is my original work and that all sources of materials used for
this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for MA Degree at the Haramaya University and is deposited at the
University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I solemnly
declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any
academic degree, diploma, or certificate.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the
Department of Foreign Language Studies or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when
in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all
other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
Name: MisrakWeldegiorgis
Place: Haramaya University
Date of Submission: June, 2015
Signature: ____________
v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born in 1972 in East Hararghe zone, Girawaworeda, Dogu town, Oromia
Regional state. She attended her primary education inHararkeladAnba Elementary School and
she attended her secondary education in HararMedhaneAlem Comprehensive Secondary
School. She joined Harar Teachers’ training Institute in 1988 and graduated with certificate.
Graduating from this Training institute, she taught in different parts of Oromia regional state.
The author studied her diploma in Jimma Teachers’ college and graduated in 2000. And
studied her first degree in the department of Foreign Language and Literature (English) in
Addis Ababa University and graduated in 2007. Since 2008, she has been teaching English at
Aweday secondary school, Aweday.
In 2013, she joined the school of graduate studies at Haramaya University in summer program
designed for the master of Art in Teaching English as a Foreign Language.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First I would like to praise the almighty God who helped me complete my study successfully.
My deepest and heartfelt gratitude is due to my advisors Asst. Prof. Wondifraw Mihret and Dr.
Sanjay kumar for their unreserved guidance and insightful comments from the conception to
the completion of the study. I am also indebted to the students, teachers and directors of
Aweday Secondary School for their polite collaboration during my stay in conducting my
research and for spending their invaluable time in filling the questionnaire and attending the
interview.
I would also like to extend my special thanks to my beloved husband ZewduTekle and my
children Amanuel, Tsion, Saron and Feven for all their supports. I am also grateful to those
who encouraged me to continue my study.
vii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASS
Aweday Secondary School
CLT
Communicative language teaching
EFL
English as a Foreign Language
ESL
English as a Second Language
GPT
Grammatical performance Test
MoE
Ministry of Education
P
Participant
PI
Primary Investigator
SLA
Second Language Acquisition
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
ii
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
iv
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
vii
1. INTRODUCTION
1
1.1. Background of the Study
1
1.2. Statement of the Problem
3
1.3. Objectives of the Study
4
1.3.1. General objective of the study
4
1.3.2. Specific objectives of the study
4
1.4. The Research Questions
4
1.5. The Scope of the Study
5
1.6. Significance of the Study
5
1.7. Limitation of the Study
5
1.8. Definitions of Key Terms
6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
7
2.1. Definition of Grammar
7
2.1.1. Traditional grammar
7
2.1.2. Communicative Grammar
9
2.2. The Role of Grammar in English Language
10
2.3. Reasons of Teaching Grammar
10
2.4. Communicative language teaching to teach Grammar
11
2.5. Explicit and Implicit Knowledge
13
2.5.1. Explicit knowledge
13
2.5.2. Implicit knowledge
14
ix
2.6. Inductive approach to Grammar teaching
14
2.7. Deductive approach to grammar teaching
16
2.8. Teaching Grammar in Context
17
2.9. Introducing New Language Structure in Context
19
2.10. The Need of Grammar Exercises
20
2.11. Studies Related to Approaches of Teaching Grammar
21
2.12. Grammatical Assessment
23
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
27
3.1. Research Design
27
3.2. The Design of the experiment
27
3.3. Participants
29
3.4. Sampling techniques
29
3.5. Data Collection Instruments
30
3.5.1. Questionnaire
30
3.5.2. Structured Interview
30
3.5.3. Grammar Performance Test
31
3.6. Data Collection Procedures
32
3.6.1. Piloting of the test
33
3.6.2. Validity and Reliability of Instrument
33
3.6.3. Main study
36
3.7. Treatment Procedures
37
3.8. Methods of Data Analysis
38
3.8.1. Quantitative method of data analysis
39
3.8. 2.Qualitative Data analysis
41
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
42
4.1. Introduction
42
4.2. Background of Respondents
42
x
4.3. The Practice of Inductive and Deductive Approaches of teaching grammar in the actual
classroom.
43
4.3.1. Students’ practice of learning grammar in deductive and inductive approaches at school44
4.3.2. English Teachers’ practice of using deductive and inductive approaches to teach grammar at
school
4.4. Effects of the teaching approaches
46
52
4.4.1. The grammar pre-test
53
4.4.2. The grammar post test
54
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
58
5.1. Summary
58
5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations
61
6.REFERENCES
64
7. APPENDICES
73
Appendix A. Students’ Questionnaire
73
Appendix B. Teacher’s Interview
75
Appendix C. TEST
76
Appendix D: Transcription of Teachers Interview
78
Appendix E: Students pre and post grammatical performance test score result
84
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Testing Framework the Distribution of the Grammar Achievement Test
32
Table 2: Correlation Coefficient of Each Question and the Whole of Test
35
Table 3: Reliability Statistics of each questions and the whole test
35
Table 4: Reliability Statistics between odd and even items
36
Table 5: Students’ Educational Level, Sex and Sample Distributions
42
Table 6: Teachers Work experience, Qualification and Sample Distribution
43
Table 7: Descriptive statistics for the practice of grammar lessons in English language
classroom at school
44
Table 8: Mean score on pre-test
53
Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations for Two Groups on Post-test
54
Table 10: t-test for correlated means
55
xii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of inductive and deductive approaches
of teaching grammar on grade eleven students grammatical performance with particular
reference to Active and Passive voice at Aweday Secondary School. Quasi-experimental study
was employed to achieve the research objectives and to address the research problem.
Nonequivalent control group design with Pre and post-test design that included the matching
of participants prior to random assignment to control group or experimental group was used in
the study. A sample of 60 students and 4 English languages teachers were selected. The first
groups of participants were grade 11 students made up of two intact classes, which were
randomly assigned to the two classes: an experimental group and a control group.
Experimental group was taught with Inductive approach while control group was taught with
deductive approach along with lecture. Questionnaire, structured interview, and test were used
to collect data. The results of the test were statistically analyzed using T-tests. The
Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics while qualitative data was analyzed
on the basis of the content of the information that was provided by the respondents. The data,
therefore, that were collected from different sources were organized, described and interpreted
in an integrated manner using descriptive methods of data analysis. Regarding the practice of
teaching and learning grammar, the finding revealed that both teacher and students highlighted
the explanation of the rule before practice. The t- test result showed similarity of values on
students’ grammatical performance of pre-test and proved no significant difference at p>0.05.
This implies the students’ grammatical performance was found to be equal before the
treatment. However, the results of post-test revealed that students taught with Inductive
approach performed better than students taught by deductive approach. The finding implies
the inductive approach had significant effect at 0.00*<0.05 in favor of the experimental on
students’ grammatical performance of active and passive voice. This result suggested that the
inductive approach was more effective than the deductive one in teaching passive voices.
Based on the findings, the study recommended that Inductive approach should be adopted in
teaching of voices. It was also recommended that Inductive approach should be included in the
teacher training curriculum.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents information on the background of the study, statements of the
problem, objectives of the study, research questions, and scope of the study, significance of
the study, its limitations, and definition of key terms respectively.
1.1. Background of the Study
English has been demanded globally for international communication through which
ideologies feelings and thoughts are shared among nations. To this worldwide need,
English is taught at various contexts as second and foreign language. Grammar rules as one
aspect of linguistic features are the pillars which are demanded in language teaching,
particularly in English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as second language (ESL)
contexts whereby students lack grammatical inputs and learners’ language development is
severely constrained. Practically, in the teaching of grammar, learners are taught rules of
language commonly known as sentence patterns. The outcome of teaching grammar is
hence to develop the grammatical competence and performance which are contributory to
accuracy in language use.
According to Ur (1999), in the case of the learners, grammatical rules enable them to know
and apply how such sentence patterns should be put together. Further, grammar is thought
to furnish the basis for a set of language skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. In
listening and speaking, grammar plays a crucial part in grasping and expressing spoken
language (e.g. expressions) since learning the grammar of a language is considered
necessary to acquire the capability of producing grammatically acceptable utterances in the
language (Widodo, 2004).
Up to date, few EFL research studies have suggested accessible different approaches in
teaching English grammar.Deductive approach is a way to teach grammar in the ESL/ EFL
classroom. In deductive grammar instruction, rules are given before the illustration of
examples, and learners are required to memorize these rules so that they can apply them to
make meaningful sentences (Erlam, 2003).
2
Rao (2002) indicated that explicit instruction was usually provided by EFL English
teachers who often teach English grammar deductively. In fact, it seems that students in
most contexts of grammar teaching in Ethiopia seem to learn with explicit oriented
grammar instruction. They have to recall grammar rules so well as to cope with English
written exams at school. With the constraint and the exam-oriented lesson, inductive
approach to teach grammar tends to be unusual practice.
Inductive instruction creates a context of autonomous, meaningful learning (Herron &
Cole, 2007; Wang, 2002). It encourages active rather than passive participation of students
in the learning process. In contrast to a conventional deductive approach, an inductive
approach involves a process of generalizing or discovering rules from given examples
rather than learning rules directly (Erlam, 2003; Wang, 2002). Takimoto (2005) claimed
that an inductive approach, in particular, in foreign language grammar instruction allows
students to discover grammar rules on their own and thus facilitates their recall of
linguistic structures.
Active and Passive sentences which are part of grammar items in language teaching help
learners develop the skills essential for their success in diverse environments where
English is used. It is possible to study one grammatical item but it does not mean that other
grammatical items are less important and they are totally ignored in that identifying one
item may help to give focus on it. As it is stated by Hailom (1982:78), “The teaching of
Active and Passive sentences has strong implications to the teaching of English as a
whole.” When one grammar item is studied, other grammatical items are necessarily
included because they are interrelated but the degree of focus may vary.
Based on the researcher’s experience, students have the difficulty of using Active and
Passive sentences in their communication. Thus, this problem is attributed among other
factors due to the problems of teaching voices using the appropriate approach. Therefore,
this study may possibly fill the gap and attempt to examine the effect of Deductive and
Inductive approach of teaching grammar with particular reference to Active and Passive
voice at grade eleven by comparing difference in performance rates between students who
learned active and passive voice deductively and inductively.
3
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Basically, the aim of preparatory school English teaching is to help students to achieve
sufficient mastery of the language skills required for different purposes. MoE has designed
the English language syllabus for preparatory students indicating minimum learning
competencies that students should achieve. Thus, they are expected to use grammar in
speaking and writing to convey ideas, and grasp information from spoken or written
discourses (MoE 2013). However, this fact seems contrary to what is really observed.
Experience as an English language teacher confirms that it is difficult for preparatory
students to intake and internalizes grammar rules and use them in practical engagements.
The researcher has always been inquisitive on why students could not express their idea
correctly using active and passive sentences that they have learnt as required. In the
classroom, they could do the given exercises correctly, but when they wanted to speak,
they forgot the grammar and started to speak ungrammatical sentences. Active and Passive
sentences are quite complex in both form and meaning; they are challenging for most
learners of English. In addition to this, teachers always blame on the low level of students’
English language performance.
If you have a good understanding of the English tense system and of the verb to be, you
will find it easier to understand and use passive sentences. It is obvious that voices are
included in grammar lessons starting from primary school English textbooks. Though the
lessons are given repeatedly for many years, students couldn’t perform active and passive
sentences in the right way. Larsen-Freeman (2009) argues that meaningful use of grammar
would be a challenge for learners, for example, in choosing between the active and passive
voices or between English present perfect and past tenses. The researcher assumes that the
approach used to teach voices may not allow them to use the rule appropriately.
The Controversies of using inductive and deductive approaches has been an issue among
linguists and although several researchers have studied the issue and no such similar results
have been found. So far attempts have been made by many researchers who have sought to
employ different teaching approaches to help learners to apply the rules of grammar in the
4
English language. In line with this, Getinet Bilew (2010) assessed the presentation of
grammar with particular reference to conditional sentences at grade nine students of two
selected high schools in Wolaita Zone. He found that deductive and prescriptive methods
were dominantly presented by the text book and teachers in the classroom. And methods of
teaching grammar in classroom were not sufficient enough for acquiring the abilities of
learners. However the effect of the approach in relation to the students’ performance was
not assessed. Therefore, the researcher hopes that this study will contribute in improving
the students' performance level in using active and passive sentences and also in providing
teachers with an effective approach of teaching voices.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General objective of the study
The study aimed at investigating the effect of inductive and deductive approaches of
teaching grammar on students’ grammatical performance with reference to Active and
Passive voice.
1.3.2. Specific objectives of the study
The study specifically aimed at:
1.assessing the practice of inductive and deductive approaches in teaching grammar
2. examining the effect of inductive approach and deductive approach in teaching grammar
3. analyzing the impact of inductive vs. deductive approaches in teaching active and
passive voice on students grammatical performance
1.4. The Research Questions
The study attempted to find answers to the following research questions:
1. To what extent inductive and deductive approaches were practiced in the actual
classroom?
2. What is the extent of differences in performance rates between students' mean scores of
pre and posttests?
3. What is the impact of inductive vs. deductive approaches of teaching Active and passive
voices on students’ grammatical performance?
5
1.5. The Scope of the Study
The research was mainly concerned with the investigation of the effect of inductive and
deductive approaches of teaching grammar on grade eleven students grammatical
performance with reference to Active and Passive voice. The data collection was also
limited to Aweday secondary school in two randomly selected sections and teachers of this
school in Aweday Town. This was investigated by contrasting students’ success rates
(grammatical performance changes) in learning active and passive voice inductively and
deductively.
1.6. Significance of the Study
The findings from the study are important to EFL teachers who are in a position to teach
students to meet their academic requirements stated to the level. This study would
contribute in improving the students' level in using active and passive and also in providing
teachers with an effective approach of teaching voices.
The difference in performance rates between the students in the two groups in comparison
to one another is expected to provide valuable insights and implications on the effect of
inductive and deductive approach of teaching grammar on the students’ grammatical
performance of Active and Passive voice.
It also helps other practitioners to use the appropriate approach in teaching voices to
improve students’ performance. Finally, its result is potentially believed to be a stepping
stone for further investigation on the effect of these approaches on other grammatical
items.
1.7. Limitation of the Study
Two sections selected from three sections of ASS and to control researcher bias, a few
lessons were peer reviewed to ensure that the investigator did not favor one approach over
the other. The researcher knows it will be better to gather data from many high schools and
many more English teachers of grade eleven. However, due to constraints of money and
time, only two sections of students from grade eleven and English teachers who taught
grade nine and ten from ASS were included.
6
1.8. Definitions of Key Terms
Clarification of the terms which constitute the backbone of the study is of great importance
so as to avoid misunderstanding or misperceptions as a result some of the terms need to be
defined.
Approaches of Teaching Grammar: in the context of this study it is used to refer the
inductive and deductive method of teaching grammar.
Comparison group: In a quasi-experimental research design, this is the group of research
participants
that,
for
the sake of
comparison, does
not
receive the
treatment/intervention given to the treatment group.
Deductive Approach: is an approach to language teaching in which learners explicitly
study grammar rules before applying these rules in doing exercises (Ellis,2008b).
Experimental /Treatment group: students exposed to the independent variable
(inductive approach of teaching.
Grammatical performance -is defined in terms of the ability to integrate and use the
knowledge of structures. Grammatical performance is typically assessed by raters
using scales that gauge grammatical accuracy on performance test.
Inductive approach: is a form of explicit instruction that aims at drawing learners’
attention to a specific form first through a functional activity or examples from
which the rule later surfaces (Ellis, 2008b).
Performance test -­Measures an individual's performance on a particular task.
The effect: refers the degree of improvement in the students' grammatical performance in
Active and Passive voices. It is statistically measured.
7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Definition of Grammar
Grammar is defined as the set of logical and structural rules that govern the composition of
sentences, phrases, and words in any given natural language Wikipedia (2009). Crystal
(2004) defines Grammar that, it is the structural foundation of our ability to express
ourselves. The more we are aware of how it works, the more we can monitor the meaning
and effectiveness of the way we and others use language. It can help foster precision,
detect ambiguity, and exploit the richness of expression available in English." Abu Jeld
(2004) clarified grammar as: "The sounds and sound patterns, the basic units of meaning
such as words and the rules to combine them to form new sentences constitute the
grammar of a language. These rules are internalized and subconsciously learned by native
speakers." In sum, grammar
is a basis for building language which controls the
composition of its morphology, vocabulary and its expressions to enable the individual to
deliver a clear message and understand and convey meaning correctly, whether in writing
or orally.
2.1.1. Traditional grammar
Traditional grammar emphasizes learning technical vocabulary for nouns, verbs, adverbs,
and adjectives; learners are taught grammatical rules to master sentence patterns. In this
approach, a grammar rule is explicitly presented to students and followed by a practice
exercise to apply the rule. So, the learners are in control during the practice and have less
fear of drawing an incorrect conclusion related to how the target language is functioning.
On the other hand, Ellis (1995), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) suggested that this type
of language learning may not have major effects on sequences of acquisition, but it has
facilitative effects on both the rate and the ultimate level of second language acquisition.
Similarly, other studies on the effectiveness of second language instruction (Norris &
Ortega, 2000) concluded that this type of explicit instruction (presenting the structure,
describing and exemplifying it, and giving rules for its use) results in important
improvements in the learning of target structures. However, implicit instruction (usually
consisting of communicative exposure to the target form) alone can delay students to
achieve their learning goals.
8
According to Ulrich (1994), grammatical rules enable learners to know and apply how
such sentence patterns should be put together, and the teaching of grammar should focus
its attention on the way grammatical items or sentence patterns are correctly used. In other
words, teaching grammar should encompass language structure or sentence patterns,
meaning and use. Indeed, in traditional language teaching, what students learn and how
they learn are determined with reference to the classroom situation, rather than with
reference to the learners’ real communicative needs in real situations. As a result, learners
often have difficulty using what they have learned, beyond the classroom. For this reason,
Skehan (1996) advised that the traditional model is not supported by current research; he
maintains that the belief on a precise focus of a particular form leads to learning, but it
doesn’t mean that to practice drills or diagram sentences has little relevance to use
grammar effectively. Besides, this type of logical approach encourages the belief that
learning a language is simply a case of knowing rules.
Krashen (1982) such an approach may be ineffective, because it assumes that manipulation
of the forms alone leads the learners to acquire grammatical accuracy but that is not true.
In this regard, Harmer (2007) pointed out that a student may use and repeat the forms and
practicing them. This by itself doesn’t necessarily imply an ability of knowing how to use
the language appropriately and effectively. This approach also sees grammar rules at the
most important feature of a language. The emphasis is, therefore, on form and the
arrangement of the element of language according to its grammatical patterns. Terence
(1994) says that:
“to such people, the term grammar suggests dos and don’ts make sure
that your verbs agree with their subject, never use me as a subject of a
sentence…”
From this it is understood that grammar will provide the basis on which learners can build
their knowledge, provides exercise with a view to enabling students to master their form.
As it is pointed out in Atkins et.al, (1995) in this approach students learn question forms,
imperatives, conditionals, negation of statements etc, but without relating them to
communicative functions or learning to make the right choice of form to express a given
function in given situation.
9
Since the emphasis is on the mastery of the usage, even at the expense of learning a
structure’s meaning, use, and communicative value. The teacher often explains and imparts
his knowledge of grammar. Rutherford (1987) also says the traditional method typically
represents an attempt to instill grammatical competence directly i.e. necessary and the
learner is a tabularize. This indicates that, in the traditional approach learners assume
passive role and the teacher assumes a leading role, teacher talk takes up a very high
proportion of lesson and grammar learning is considered.
2.1.2. Communicative Grammar
The term communicative has been misunderstood since many teachers believe that
students should simply articulate the language without following any rule or sentence
pattern. But, the term communicative or interactive refers to the ability to use language
effectively and appropriately. It contrasts with the belief that only knowledge of a grammar
is needed to produce and understand correct sentences. This groups says communicative
competence involves both knowledge grammar and knowledge of context and setting in
which communication takes place Conal and Swain (1980).That is to say while grammar
remains important, the key aspect of language learning are not learning its grammatical
and structural features, but categories of communicative meaning. The ability to use the
structure to express or convey meaningful information is emphasized here.
In order to get our students engaged in a meaningful exchange of information, we need to
teach them language functions, instead of teaching them grammar. Harmer (1987) ”views
that we actually use language to do things to perform certain function”. So to help our
students to use the language, we should teach functions not grammar rules. Similarly,
Richard (2006) stated, “CLT can be understood as a set of principles about the goals of
language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom activities that
best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom”. But
language teachers’ ideas about the concept can vary and they might visualize their
methodology in terms of making grammar classes more interactive and productive.
On the other hand, the main goal of CLT is the teaching of communicative competence,
which refers to knowledge of the building blocks of sentences (e.g. parts of speech, tenses,
a teaching methodology which deals with certain aspects of language knowledge such as:
knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions, how to vary
10
our use of language according to the setting and the participants, e.g. knowing when to use
formal and informal speech or when to use languages appropriately for written as opposed
to spoken communication, how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g.
narratives, reports, interviews, conversations), and how to maintain communication despite
having limitations in one’s language knowledge (e.g. through using different kinds of
communication strategies).
2.2. The Role of Grammar in English Language
According to Lin (2010) Grammar is the central heart of language, and is a tool to help
learners’ comprehension of the target language. Because grammar provides systematic
rules of structure and word order, learners can create their own spoken and written
discourse using these grammatical rules. Without grammatical structure, the use of
language could easily become chaotic and might not be understandable (Brown, 2007a).
Furthermore, Nunan (1991) strongly supported grammar teaching because grammar helps
learners perform in their target languages better. He also reported that students cannot
communicate well if they did not have a fundamental level of grammar.
According to Lin (2008), the role of grammar is to help students discover the nature of
language, i.e., language consists of predictable patterns that make what we say, read, hear,
and write intelligible. As Lin (2008) stated, without grammar, people would have only
individual words or sounds, pictures, and body language to communicate meaning.
Moreover, effective grammar can help students use this knowledge as they write and speak
2.3. Reasons of Teaching Grammar
There are numerous arguments for teaching grammar, but no one clearly articulates a
single reason why grammar instruction is so necessary that students cannot do without it.
However, there are some suggestions as to why teachers persist in teaching grammar
anyway. Celce-Murcia (1991), argues for grammar instruction on the grounds that it is
worth teaching at least because it makes students more aware of language. Grammar
instruction helps learners to monitor or become more aware of the forms they use. Of
course, this is regardless of whether or not the students choose to then use the things they
have learned. But in the failure of students to apply grammar knowledge to their writing
the fault of the grammar, the pedagogy, or the students?
11
Regardless the different reasons of teaching grammar, grammar is very important to be
taught for students since it is the pillar of the language and it makes a sense for the
meanings that needed to be passed from the speakers to the listeners and from the writers
to the readers.
2.4. Communicative language teaching to teach Grammar
For years, many English language teachers have taught grammar classes following just
prefabricated structures as groups of sentence patterns without any possible flexibility or
transformation. But, since the 1990s the Communicative approach has been widely
implemented in these classes because “it describes a set of general principles grounded in
the notion of communicative competence as the goal of second and foreign language
teaching. A new approach that has evolved as our understanding of the processes of second
language learning has developed” (Richards, 2006).Consequently, a set of principles based
on communicative language teaching can be applied according to the teaching context, the
age of the learners, their level, and their learning goals. This way, English language
teachers can adapt their teaching strategies to the subject matter and create and apply
activities for each lesson. This will awaken students’ intuition and creativity when using
the language.
Through this application of principles, some core assumptions of the current
communicative language teaching cited by Richards (2006) will be assumed: When second
language learning is facilitated learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful
communication is a holistic process that often calls upon the use of several language skills
or modalities. Effective classroom learning tasks and exercises provide opportunities for
students to negotiate meaning, expand their language resources, notice how language is
used, and take part in meaningful intrapersonal exchange. Language learning is facilitated
both by activities that involve inductive or discovery learning of underlying rules of
language use and organization, as well as those involving language analysis and reflection.
These assumptions help language teachers analyze the approaches used while teaching
grammar and make students internalize and use it in a natural and spontaneous way. The
communicative approach says that grammar items should be presented in context. And a
context is a situation that forces a language to be used. As many scholars point it out, a
context can be the student’s word, the outside world and formulated text.
12
We can create a context by relating structures to communicative function. Using contexts
in presenting grammar structure will allow a natural way of learning and this intern
provides an opportunity where students make their own hypothesis about the form of the
language, just as they did in a learning their languages.
Commenting on how grammar should be presented to help those who use the language to
express their thoughts correctly ether in speaking or writing Atkin et.al, (1995) says that,
grammar should be presented: in context in which students attention is drawn to the
meanings and forms of the items following by opportunity to practice it. By emphasizing
how the grammar is creating meaning and how change in grammatical form change
meaning and with tasks involving students in real language use and with also tasks aimed
at developing awareness of rules of use inductively. Such grammar presentations are
typical of the communicative approach. The belief behind the communicative approach is
that, language learning takes place in the process of communication, which naturally
involves interaction and the negotiation of meaning. It follows form then the learners
should be encouraged to engage in real communication and that will assist their learning.
In this approach it is assumed that the student brings to the classroom experiences and
knowledge which is valuable to the learning process. The student can no longer be seen as
an empty vessel which a teacher can arbitrarily fill with new knowledge or behaviors as
traditional approach. The approach also given great emphasize to student oral participation
and student talking time is an important measurement of a successful lesson. This point is
illustrated by Nunan (1989) pinpointing criterion communicative teaching. Therefore,
more emphasize is given to student-student interaction than teacher-centered instruction.
So the approach assumes a very active role for the student. And the classroom is organized
in such a way that it helps more interaction to take place between students themselves.
Students are also allowed to experiment with the language and the teacher should not
persist in interfering in order to correct errors. All he has to do is to facilitate
communicative process and monitor the learning activities.
Unlike the traditional approach, which expects students to proceed at the same pace, the
communicative approach encourages students to find their own ways and use their own
strategies for learning.
13
With the rise of communicative approaches to teach foreign languages, researchers started
to question the role of formal or explicit grammar instruction on second and foreign
language learning. Explicit instruction is defined as drawing students’ attention to rules
during the learning process, while implicit instruction is aimed at enabling learners to infer
rules without awareness (Ellis, 2008b).
2.5. Explicit and Implicit Knowledge
In the case of teaching grammar to EFL learners, a teacher may feel frustrated when
learners are taught grammatical items separately. Students may become good at grammar;
however, when told to write and speak, they often make grammatical mistakes. This case is
very challenging to solve. When facing this problem, learners, it is useful to be aware that
there are two kinds of knowledge necessary to gain proficiency in a second language.
These are known as explicit (conscious learning) and implicit (subconscious acquisition)
knowledge (Klein, 1986).
2.5.1. Explicit knowledge
According to Ellis (2004), in a practical definition, explicit knowledge deals with language
and the uses to which language can be put. This knowledge facilitates the intake and
development of implicit language and it is useful to monitor language output. Explicit
knowledge is generally accessible through controlled processing. In short, it is conscious
knowledge of grammatical rules learned through formal classroom instruction. In this
respect, a person with explicit knowledge knows about language and the ability to
articulate those facts in some way (Brown, 2000). For instance, one can knows every rule
about present tense, but frequently makes mistakes in speaking and writing.
However, such knowledge is easy while having time to think of the rule and apply it (that
is, in the context of a grammar exercise or a writing assignment). Thus, explicit knowledge
is learnable; for example, when grammatical items are given to learners, they learn the
items first in a controlled learning process. Explicit knowledge is also obtained through the
practice of error correction, which is thought to help learners come to the correct mental
representation of a rule.
14
This works if there is enough time to operate it; the speaker is concerned with the
correctness of her/his speech/written production; and s/he knows the correct rules
(Krashen, 1987).
2.5.2. Implicit knowledge
Implicit knowledge is automatic and easily accessed and provides a great contribution to
building communicative skills. Implicit knowledge is unconscious, internalized knowledge
of language that is easily accessed during spontaneous language tasks, written or spoken
(Brown, 2000). Implicit knowledge is gained in the natural language learning process. It
means that a person applies a certain grammatical rule in the same way as a child who
acquires her/his first language (for example, mother tongue). According to Brown (2000),
the child implicitly learns aspects of language (for example, phonological, syntactical,
semantic, pragmatic rules for language), but does not have access to an explanation of
those rules explicitly. As an example, someone speaks and writes English with good use of
present tense, although he has no idea about the grammatical rule behind it. To sum up,
implicit knowledge is gained through a sub-conscious learning process. This is illustrated
by the fact that native speakers of a certain language do not always “know” (consciously)
the rules of their language (Krashen, 1987).
In comparing the two terms: explicit and implicit knowledge, Nunan (2004) proposes a
challenging question: “May explicit grammar knowledge becomes implicit knowledge in
the context of EFL learners?” In response to this, there are two answers. First, in Krashen’s
view, explicit knowledge can never be implicit knowledge asmuch as the two are located
in dissimilar parts of the brain. In contrast, the interface position claims that explicit
knowledge can have some impact on implicit knowledge. This position has two views. The
first maintains that explicit knowledge becomes internalized through practice or frequent
exposure to target language similar to the acquisition of other skills. The second goes along
with the Krashen’s view.
2.6. Inductive approach to Grammar teaching
According to Brown (2000), an inductive approach is an inductive reasoning storing a
number of specific instances and inducing a general law or rule or conclusion that governs
or subsumes the specific instances. Learners must infer certain rules and meanings from all
the data around them.
15
With the inductive approach, Winter (1989) stated that it is compared as the Audio-lingual
method where learning is defined as habit formation. Students learned by rote of numerous
examples of a structure until the use of that structure become automatic. They were not
consciously aware of what structures they were learning unless at the end of lesson the
teacher gave them the appropriate rule to describe what they had already supposedly
learned. The teacher’s role is to provide meaningful contexts to encourage demonstration
of the rule, while the students evolve the rules from the examples of its use and continued
practice (Rivers et al, 1978).
Further, Paradoski (2007) stated that the inductive approach is student centered and allows
learners to become deeply involved in the language they are writing and offers potential
for reflection. In the process of learning to write (learning- and- doing) they fill more
important, are less passive, and do not get bored so easily during the lesson.
Winter (1989) said that the inductive technique can render grate service to teachers who
have problems with keeping their students disciplined, concentrated and occupied, as it
partly obviates this problems. Knowing that they can work out the rules from examples
by themselves greatly increases learner’s motivation, make them attentive, more actively
involved in-and confident enthusiastic about- the learning process rather than simply
passive recipients, and at the same time contributes to its effectiveness. Thus, the inductive
approach, the students learn the use of the structure through practice of the language in
context, and later realize the rules from the practical examples. Second, according to
Krashen (2002), an inductive approach relates to learning and accusation in SLA theory.
The inductive approach relates to sub conscious learning processes similar to the concept
of language accusation. According to this approach, learners learn the system of language,
for example, grammar or sentence rules, in the same way as children acquire their first or
second language. In this regard, meaning full interaction in the target language or natural
communication is more important than the form of language. For this reason, error
correction and explicit teaching of the rule are de-emphasized. Most importantly,
utterances are easily understood.
Moreover, when the inductive approach is applied, the learners learn the rule
unconsciously. Despite the advantages of the inductive approach, it might not always be a
good way to approach a grammar item.
16
Firstly, it can be very time consuming as the teacher has to create the many examples
needed to demonstrate the rules well enough and it might also take much time for the
learners to actually discover the rules. The time taken to the discovery might not leave
enough room for exercises and in this case the learners could only depend on their own
conclusions. Secondly, the learners might hypothesis the rules wrong which might lead to
incorrect assumptions of the grammar item (Thornbury 2004).
2.7. Deductive approach to grammar teaching
A deductive approach is derived from the notion that deductive reasoning works from the
general to the specific. In this case, rules, principles, concepts, or theories are presented
first, and then their applications are treated. In conclusion, when we use deduction, we
reason from general to specific principles. Dealing with the teaching of grammar, the
deductive approach can also be called rule driven learning. In such an approach, a
grammar rule is explicitly presented to students and followed by practice applying the rule.
This approach has been the bread and butter of language teaching around the world and
still enjoys a monopoly in many course books and self-study grammar books (Fortune,
1992). The deductive approach maintains that a teacher teaches grammar by presenting
grammatical rules, and then examples of sentences are presented. Once learners understand
rules, they are told to apply the rules given to various examples of sentences. Giving the
grammatical rules means no more than directing learners’ attention to the problem
discussed.
The deductive approach commences with the presentation of a rule taught and then is
followed by examples in which the rule is applied. In this regard, learners are expected to
engage with it through the study and manipulation of examples. Most importantly, when
the rules are presented in the deductive approach, the presentation should be illustrated
with examples, be short, involve students’ comprehension and allow learners to have a
chance to personalize the rule. Second, according to Krashen (2002), the deductive
approach is related to the conscious learning process in which this approach tries to place a
great emphasis on error correction and the presentation of explicit rules.
Such an approach is applied for the reason that it is an efficient and elegant way to
organize and present the rule that is already understood. The deductive approach is often
used with adult learners.
17
Through the deductive approach, a teacher tries to teach the rule explicitly to the learners
so that they are ready to cope with exercises given. The explicit rule presentation can
enhance the learners’ confidence in doing certain tasks. To be successful in applying the
approach, the teacher needs to provide numerous exercises. Thornbury (1999) suggests a
number of advantages of a deductive approach:
It gets straight to the point, and can therefore be time-saving. Many rules – especially rules
of form can be more simply and quickly explained than elicited from examples. This will
allow more time for practice and application as it respects the intelligence and maturity of
many – especially adult – students, and acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in
language learning. It confirms many students’ expectations about classroom learning,
particularly for those learners who have an analytical learning style. It allows the teacher to
deal with language points as they come up, rather than having to anticipate and prepare for
them in advance.
2.8. Teaching Grammar in Context
Kokshetau (2007) states that, context means the situation or body of information, which
causes language to be used. There are a number of different context types, the students'
world, the outside world and formulated information. The students' world can be a major
source of contexts for language presentation. There are two kinds of students' world.
Clearly we can use the physical surroundings that the students are in - the classroom,
school or institution. But classrooms and their physical properties (tables, chairs, windows,
etc.) are limited. The students' lives are not constrained in the same way, however, and we
can use facts about them, their families, friends and experiences.
The outside world provides us with rich contexts for presentation For example, there is an
almost infinite number of stories we can use to present different lenses. We can also create
situations where people speak because they are in those situations, or where the writer
describes some special information. This is especially useful for the practice of functional
language, for example. We can ask students to look at examples of language which show
the new language in operation, though this last category can sometimes have no context.
These three sub-categories, story, situation or language, can be simulated or real. Most
teachers are familiar with 'made-up' stones which arc often useful for class work: real
stories work well too, of course.
18
In the same way they can create the simulation of an invitation dialogue, for example. But
here again they could also show students a real invitation dialogue.
In general it can be said that real contexts are better simply because they are real, but they
may have complexities of language and comprehensibility which can be avoided by
simulated contexts - life-like but clearly mode-up to some extent.
Formulated information refers to all that information which is presented in the form of
timetables, notes, charts etc. Once again teachers can use real charts and timetables, growth
statistics, etc. or they can design our own which will be just right for our students.
Exploring grammar in context is a guide to some key features of English grammar.
Exploring grammar in context is different from traditional grammar books because many
of the examples are taken from real contexts of grammar in use. These authentic examples
show speakers and writers using the language to communicate in a wide variety of
contexts. Like most grammar books which often illustrate grammatical forms by means of
single sentences, several of the examples involve single sentences. But in here, the
emphasis on grammar in context means that the examples also frequently contain several
sentences or short conversational extracts and show grammar at work across the
boundaries of the sentence or the individual speaking turn. This technique regularly draws
attention to grammar as choice and gives the learner opportunities to exercise grammatical
choice in relation to particular contexts in which the language is used (Carter et al., 2000:
vii).The notion of “context” is a very powerful one, applicable in all areas of human
behavior. Many linguists, social scientists, and indeed literary scholars have taken, as an
article of faith, the idea that “Context is all.” Well, maybe it’s not literally all, but it’s
probably true that no act of language behavior, or any proposed rule of grammar, can be
satisfactorily understood without taking context into account (Thomas and David, 2007).
Contextualized grammar is using grammar via context or situations. The general
conclusion from ninety years of research is that teaching grammar in isolation does not
seem to have much effect on the writing of more than a few students (Weaver, 1996: 32).
There is little transfer from grammar exercises to authentic writing. A focus on sentence
generating, combining, and manipulating is much more helpful to writers than traditional
grammar instruction Hillocks and Smith (1991). Exploring Grammar in Context makes a
distinction between grammar as structure and grammar as choice.
19
Grammar as structure means: what rules does the learner need to know in order to use this
form effectively? An example of a structural rule would be, for example, that in ellipsis a
modal verb normally attracts the repeated verb have, as in:
A: Has she taken it with her?
B: She may have, I'm not sure (Carter et al., 2000: vii).
Grammar as choice means: when is it normal to use ellipsis? Are some forms of ellipsis
more likely to be used in spoken than in written modes? Are the forms linked to greater or
lesser degrees of intimacy and informality? For example subject ellipsis in expressions
such as 'Looking forward to seeing you', 'Don't know' and 'Think so' is largely the
speaker's/writer's choice (ibid).
2.9. Introducing New Language Structure in Context
Kokshetau (2007) pointed that, teachers should be prepared to use a variety of techniques
to help their students learn and acquire grammar. Sometimes this involves teaching
grammar rules; sometimes it means allowing students to discover the rules for themselves.
What do they introduce? Teachers' job at this stage of the lesson is to present the students
with clear information about the language they are learning. They must also show them
what the language means and how it is used; they must also show them what the
grammatical form of the new language is, and how it is said and/or written. What is being
suggested here is that students need to get an idea of how his new language is used by
native speakers and the best way of doing this is to present language in context.
The context for introducing new language should have a number of characteristics should
show what the new language means and how it is used, for example. That is why many
useful contexts have the new language being used in a written text or dialogue.A good
context should be interesting for the students. This doesn't mean that all the subject matter
that is used for presentation should be wildly funny or inventive all of the time. But the
students should at least want to see or hear the information. Lastly, a good context provides
the background for a lot of language use so that students can use the information not only
for the repetition of model sentences but also for making their own sentences. Often the
textbook has all the characteristics mentioned here and the teacher can confidently rely on
the material for the presentation.
20
But the textbook is not always so appropriate: for a number of reasons the information in
the book may not be right for the students in such cases teachers' and students' contexts
should be created for language use.
2.10. The Need of Grammar Exercises
Grammar rules provide students with the correct manner in where words can be put
together to create a correct sentence. Knowing how to express yourself well, using a
variety of language structures indicates a higher level of English, in both writing and
speaking. The grammar tells students how they can talk about the present, past, and future;
how to string words and phrases correctly in longer sentences; how to write noun plurals
and comparisons accurately; how to describe hypothetical assumptions and much more.
However, students should remember that without enlarging their vocabulary, they will not
be able to get very far with grammar rules alone (Whitesmoke, 2011).
There are many types of exercises for the assimilation of grammar such as recognition
exercises and creative exercises. Kokshetau (2007) stated that, recognition exercises are
the easiest type of exercises for students to perform. They observe the grammar item in
structures (sentence patterns) when hearing or reading. Since students only observe the
new grammar item, the situations should be natural and communicative. For example:
Read the sentences and choose the correct form of the verb. The following sentences may
be suggested: If the weather were fine we (would go, went) to the forest. Students should
read the sentences and find the signals for the correct choice of the form.
Since the necessary form is suggested in each sentence they should only recognize the one
they need for a given context. Recognition exercises are indispensable as students retain
the grammar material through auditory and visual perception. Auditory and visual memory
is at work. Alekseenko (2010) pointed that, creative exercises (speech exercises) are the
most difficult type of exercises as they requires creative work on the part of the learners
(asking questions with a given grammar item, speaking about the situation offered by the
teacher, participating in free conversation in which students are to use the grammar item
they have learned). All the exercises mentioned above are designed to develop students'
skills in recognizing grammar forms while listening to and reading English texts; to
accumulate correct sentence patterns in the students' memory which they can reproduce
whenever they need these patterns for speaking or writing; and to help the students to
21
produce sentences of their own using grammar items necessary for speaking about a
situation or a topic offered, or writing an essay on the text heard or an annotation on the
text read. And also there should be multiple choice tests that allow the teacher to evaluate
students' achievement in grammar, that is, how each of them has mastered forms, meaning,
and usage.
In conclusion, in order to understand a language and express oneself correctly one must
assimilate the grammar mechanism of a language. Indeed, one may know all the words in a
sentence and yet fail to understand it, if one does not see the relationship between the
words in the given sentence, and vice versa, a sentence may contain one, two, and more
unknown words but if one has a good knowledge of the structure of the language one can
easily guess the meanings of these words or at least find them in a dictionary.
No speaking is possible without the knowledge of grammar, without the forming of a
grammar mechanism. Students need grammar to be able to speak, and write in the target
language. This means that good understanding of forms and structures of the language
make students communicate correctly and write properly.
To approach grammar exercises in contexts there are some useful hints mentioned by
Whitesmoke (2011) as first make sure you use as many kinds of grammar exercises in
textbooks and websites so you get to target as many grammar skills as possible.Always
read the instructions well and make sure you know which language structures or grammar
rules you are supposed to use in each exercise within its context. In sentence fill-ins,
always read the whole sentence up to its end, understand the context, and only then address
the grammar point at hand. In longer cloze passages (paragraphs with missing words to
complete), read at least 5 lines without completing anything in order to get clues from the
context. These clues will help you with the grammar completions. Try and actively use
every new structure you learn in free speech and in writing. Another good grammar
exercise is to identify grammar structures in your reading and trying to explain why the
author has chosen them over other structures.
2.11. Studies Related to Approaches of Teaching Grammar
Several studies have conducted two approaches of teaching grammar among learners.
Many studies have been carried out in the area of approaches of teaching grammar in local
and international EFL Context.
22
In local Context, Getinet Bilew (2010) conducted a study aimed to examine grammar
presentation by focusing on conditional sentences at grade nine. Classroom observation,
teachers’ questionnaire and document analysis were tools used in the study. Descriptive
method which includes quantitative and qualitative interpretation was used to discuss the
obtained data. He found that deductive and prescriptive methods were dominantly
presented by the textbook and teachers in the classroom. Grammar
presentation in
general and conditional sentences in particular lack the basic presentation principles.
Methods of teaching grammar in the classroom were not sufficient enough for acquiring
the abilities of learners.
A few research studies have examined the effects of inductive and deductive approaches in
teaching foreign or second language grammar in the past decades (e.g., Erlam, 2003;
Herron &Tomasello, 1992; Nagata, 1997; Rose & Ng, 2001; Takimoto, 2005; Wang, 2002;
Xia, 2005). These studies have, however, produced inconsistent results. Although Herron
and Tomasello (1992) found the inductive approach superior to conventional deduction in
foreign language grammar instruction, Erlam (2003) found the deductive approach more
effective in teaching second language grammar. In addition to grammar instruction, Rose
and Ng (2001) and Takimoto (2005) explored the effects of the two approaches on
pragmatic use. Rose and Ng (2001) found that deductive approach was effective on
developing socio-pragmatic proficiency, while Takimoto (2005) revealed that students
retained the pragmatic use longer under inductive instruction. Unfortunately, the
effectiveness of induction in contrast to deduction was still uncertain.
Generally, quite a few research studies have explored the effect of inductive vs. deductive
approach in grammar instruction in past decades (e.g., Erlam, 2003; Haight et al., 2007;
Herron &Tomasello, 1992; Nagata, 1997; Rose & Ng, 2001; Takimoto, 2005; Wang;
2002; Xia, 2005). However, very few of them have examined the interaction between
teaching approach and learners’ language proficiency (Wang, 2002) or that between
teaching approach and task complexity (e.g., Wang, 2002). Besides, the aforementioned
studies produced contradictory results; some of them claimed inductive approach to be
effective (Haight et al., 2007; Herron &Tomasello, 1992; Takimoto, 2005; Wang, 2002),
and some, deductive one (Erlam, 2003; Nagata, 1997; Rose & Ng, 2001), and even Xia, (
2005) produced no significant difference between the two approaches.
23
Such inconsistency found in the literature suggests that further exploration on inductive
and deductive approaches in the context of grammar instruction is very necessary. In
addition, the students’ grammatical performances in relation to these approaches have not
been thoroughly examined to date. They would be covered in the current research.
2.12. Grammatical Assessment
Performance assessments make a major contribution to the academic careers of students,
particularly those with challenging academic lives, by informing instruction and supporting
higher-quality teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Miller and Linn (2000)
believe that “much of the impetus for [performance assessments] is that they should mirror
the teaching and learning process and provide a better measure of accountability”.
Firestone et al., (1998) point out that “performance-based assessment can change specific
behaviors and procedures in the classroom more easily than the general paradigm for
teaching a subject.” They suggest that working closely with performance assessments may
improve teachers’ instructional knowledge. Similarly ,Linn et al. (1991) indicated that
teaching for test items emphasizing problem solving is not limited to a single right answer;
rather there could be many ways of solving problems—an important aspect of good
instruction.
In the traditional approach to assessing grammar, grammatical knowledge is defined in
terms of accurate production and comprehension, and then assessed through the four skills.
Testing is typically done by means of de contextualized, discrete-point items such as
sentence unscrambling, fill-in-the-blanks, error correction, sentence completion, sentence
combining, picture description, elicited imitation, judging grammatical correctness, and
modified cloze passages. Such formats test grammar knowledge, but they do not assess
whether test takers can use grammar correctly in real-life speaking or writing.
A significant contribution of the communicative or proficiency-based approach in the
1970s and 1980s was a shift from seeing language proficiency in terms of knowledge of
structures, which could best be assessed using discrete-point items, to the ability to
integrate and use the knowledge in performance, which could best be accessed through the
production and comprehension of written texts and through face-to-face interaction under
real-time processing conditions (McNamara &Roever, 2006).
24
In the latter, more integrative, approach to grammar assessment, grammatical performance
is typically assessed by raters using scales that gauge grammatical accuracy, complexity,
and the range of grammatical structures used. The judgments are subjective, and because
the assessment formats are more open-ended, they are subject to possible inconsistencies.
For this reason, certain factors, such as rater severity and prompt difficulty, must be
examined, usually accomplished by means of generalizability theory or item-response
theory (Purpura, 2006).
The decision to eliminate the explicit testing of grammar was made in at least two cases
based on research showing that a separate subtest of grammatical knowledge could not be
adequately differentiated from other sections of a test (Cushing Weigle& Lynch, 1995 and
Alderson, 1993, cited in Purpura, 2004).A consequence of such decisions, however, is that
it is difficult to separate out what in the ability to read or write the texts is due to the lack
of knowledge concerning grammatical structures and what might be due to other factors.
We also have no way of diagnosing grammatical difficulties learners may be experiencing
or in providing them with feedback (Purpura, 2004). In sum, discrete point and integrative
tests represent different approaches to grammar assessment, each of which have a
contribution to make. There are a number of innovations underway, or at least proposed, in
the way grammar is being assessed.
Redefining the construct involves a definition of the grammar construct itself. Expanding
beyond form to include grammatical meaning is one such move. For instance, Purpura
(2004) defines grammatical ability for assessment purposes as involving “the capacity to
realize grammatical knowledge accurately and meaningfully in test-taking or other
language-use contexts.” Grammatical ability may (also) interact with pragmatic ability,
which Purpura considers a different ability area. Expanding the grammatical construct
even further are researchers at the University of Michigan who are responsible for
developing standard examinations of English proficiency (the ECCE and ECPE).
They are going beyond the assessment of grammatical form and meaning and including
grammatical use as well. Doing so necessitates assessing how grammar functions at the
discourse level, where its use in cohesion, thematic continuity, anaphora, cataphora,
grammatical focus, back grounding and foregrounding, etc., are measured, as well as
assessing students’ knowledge of how sociolinguistic functions, such as constructing
25
identity, conveying politeness, displaying power, etc. are realized grammatically. Speakers
have a choice of which of their grammatical resources to deploy. Grammar is not a
linguistic straitjacket (Larsen-Freeman, 2002; Cullen, 2008).
Discrete-point tests usually rely on dichotomous /Partial scoring of grammatical accuracy.
Recently, it has been proposed that scoring grammatical items polytomously would yield
information about learners who have an intermediary knowledge of grammar, rather than
their being treated as if they have no knowledge at all (Purpura, 2006). To examine the
extent to which answers on multiple-choice grammar items can be ordered along a path of
progressive attainment, Purpura (2006) examined the grammar section of the University of
Michigan ECPE, and found that many of the items did show what seemed to be a
progressive attainment pattern in the response patterns of 1,000 candidates. If these items
are indeed measuring developmental levels, dichotomous scoring raises several concerns.
First, a considerable amount of developmental information is lost with students who have
partial knowledge. More seriously, scoring dichotomously underestimates some students’
true ability, and it makes it impossible for some students to receive feedback appropriate to
their developmental level. While partial scoring is not a complete solution, it is one step in
the long-hoped-for development of an inter language-sensitive approach to assessment
(Larsen- Freeman & Long, 1991).
Language testing should focus on students’ basic language skills, and it should aim to be
scientific, objective, unified and standardized. Examinations or high-stakes tests exert a
considerable impact on what, and how, teaching and learning are conducted in the
classroom (Andrews, 2004; Turner, 2000; Wall, 2000). Test impact has been described in
language education as “wash back” (Alderson & Wall, 1993) or “backwash” (Spolsky,
1994), meaning that tests have an effect on teaching and learning, the educational system,
and the various stakeholders in the education process as well (Andrews, 2004). According
to Alderson and Wall (1993), “tests can be powerful determiners, both positively and
negatively, of what happens in classrooms” (p. 41). The powerful impact of testing
suggests that “teachers and learners do things they would not necessarily otherwise do
because of the test” (Alderson & Wall, 1993).
26
Since the 1980s, much research has been undertaken on positive and negative wash back
phenomena of testing on teaching and learning. Researchers (e.g., Turner, 2000) strongly
suggested that it is not only possible but also desirable for testing to help bring about
beneficial outcomes in teaching and learning. To prove that positive wash back existed in
language classrooms, Turner (2000) conducted a study investigating the impact of the
provincial ESL speaking exam at the secondary level in Quebec schools. The positive
effect was demonstrated by teachers using more speaking performance tasks in their
teaching, and by students expressing satisfaction in having individual practice in speaking.
However, any positive wash back is often overshadowed by negative wash back.
27
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with: research design, participants, sampling techniques, data collection
instruments, and data collection procedures, and methods of
data analysis employed to
conduct the study.
3.1. Research Design
Quasi-experiment research design in which descriptive method embedding nonequivalent
control group with pre and posttest design was employed to ground the research, achieve
the objectives formulated and address the research problems. The researcher chose Quasiexperimental research design because this method offers practical options for conducting
impact evaluations in real world settings. The Quasi-experiments were utilized to evaluate
the effect of an intervention when the intervention has been implemented prior to the
evaluation procedure having been considered (Shadish et al., 2002).
Descriptive method was used to obtain preliminary data from students and teachers
selected for the experiment regarding their practice of teaching/learning grammar in order
to assess their experience. It was also used to analyze the effectiveness of grammar
teaching through an inductive and deductive approach in improving students’ grammatical
performance.
3.2. The Design of the experiment
The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of inductive and deductive
approaches of teaching grammar on students’ grammatical performance with reference to
Active and passive voices on preparatory school students. The Nature of the study was
quasi-experimental. This study used none equivalent control group with pre and posttest
design that included the matching of participants prior to random assignment to control
group or experimental group.
Cohen et al., (2007) described the nonequivalent control group design with pretest and
posttest as “one of the most commonly used quasi-experimental designs in educational
research.” Best & Kahn (2006) argues that the nonequivalent control group design with
pretest and posttest is often the case since students are naturally organized in groups as
28
classes within schools and are considered to share similar characteristics. Thus, the
researcher applied the nonequivalent control group design with pretest and posttest for the
purpose of comparing groups and/or measuring change resulting from experimental
treatments.
The researcher considered several elements when designing the experiment. First, she
considered the issue of assignment – to which group individuals will be included during
the experiment. For the experiment, five different lessons for each two chosen grammatical
structures (active and passive voice) were provided by the researcher and taught for six
hours out of the formal class. This allotment of time was by considering the calculated time
distribution designed to cover the entire grammar lesson in the course of English for grade
eleven which is of 32 periods.
The selected two grammatical items took 10 periods with the assumption that equal
emphasis is given for all grammar items. The two different instructional approaches
(inductive and deductive) were used to teach the chosen grammatical structures. Students
who were taught inductively were given examples without being exposed to specific
grammatical rules. Instead, they were left to discover the rules by themselves. On the other
hand, students who were taught deductively were exposed to specific grammatical rules
where they are supposed to pay conscious attention to language to understand such rules.
The researcher entailed two types of quasi-experimental outcome evaluations as suggested
by Hamilton, et.al (2007). Comparison with matched individual and use of statistical
methods to control for measured variables. In one, she made Comparison with matched
individuals to compare the effectiveness of the two approaches_ comparisons made
between students involved in a treatment and students not involved in that treatment, while
in the second, she looked at two groups of students, and measured the performance level in
pre-test and post-test scores for students of experimental group (Group A),-the group to
undergo the prescribe treatment, compared with scores for the control group (Group B), the group that receives no treatment at all and serves as the benchmarking point of
comparison.
29
3.3. Participants
Target respondents of this study were 60 grade eleven students attending their education,
and four English language teachers who were teaching at ASS in the academic year
2014/15.
The first groups of participants were grade 11 students made up of two intact classes, taught by
the researcher, which were randomly assigned to the two classes: an experimental group and a
control group. Thus; two sections of students were chosen to participate in a study of teaching
methods. The 30 students taking part in section 11A class served as the experimental group
and 30 students in section11B class served as the control group. The second groups of
respondents consisted of four English language teachers who were teaching English at the
same school. This was done to elicit data regarding their practice towards teaching English
grammar through an inductive and deductive approach. These respondents were expected to
provide valuable information about the practice of teaching grammar through inductive and
deductive approaches.
3.4. Sampling techniques
Shadish et al., (2002) point out that matching and stratifying group requires that researchers
match participants in each group on as many characteristics as possible to ensure that control
and experiment groups are as similar as possible before the treatment is introduced.
Accordingly, a matching and stratifying method of group assignment was utilized to ensure
that the control group and experiment group were as similar as possible at the start of the
experiment. A stratified sampling technique was used for selecting a sample to identify
homogeneous subgroups to be represented in the sample in the same proportion as they existed
in the population. Matching technique was also utilized for equating groups on one or more
variables so that each member of one group has a direct counterpart in another group. Taking
care of selection bias requires matching to ensure that treatment and comparison groups are as
alike as possible (Panko2007).
Available sampling was used to choose all (four) of English language teachers who
participated in the interview in order to elicit data regarding their practice towards teaching
English grammar through an inductive and deductive approaches.
30
3.5. Data Collection Instruments
Richards (2002) suggests that different methods can address different areas and at the same
time triangulating approaches to data collection (collecting information from several
sources) is believed to be vital for researchers to obtain a more reliable and comprehensive
data. Therefore, to achieve the objectives of the study, three research tools were considered
namely: questionnaire, structured interview, and test.
3.5.1. Questionnaire
Based on the objectives of the study, questionnaire containing close ended items was used
to elicit information concerning students’ practice of learning grammar lessons in English
language classroom.
Questionnaire was designed in English language by considering relevant foreign and local
literatures with closed ended items as they had been proven effective for the collection of
data in a form that quantitative data were collected. Accordingly, this questionnaire was a
modified version of the instrument used by Getinet Bilew (2010) and Séverine (2010)
which were adapted due to their appropriateness and applicability in the current
investigation. It focused on assessing the students’ experience towards learning English
grammar from the perspective of teachers’ use of deductive and inductive approaches.
It was divided into two categories: Part one requested general background information
regarding the participants’ sex and grade level. It established students’ profile for the
study. Part two was aimed at investigating the participants’ practice for the teaching
approaches used in teaching Grammar. It consisted of 10 items. It deals with the classroom
practice of learning grammar if teachers employ deductive or inductive approaches or both.
3.5.2. Structured Interview
Structured interview was the second instrument employed with English language teachers
who were teaching English at ASS during data collection time. It consisted of questions
that would be carefully thought and selected in advance. The participants were required to
express their experience based on the items. In this study, interview was undertaken to
collect data regarding teachers’ practice of using inductive and deductive approaches of
teaching grammar. (Appendix B).
31
3.5.3. Grammar Performance Test
In quasi-experimental design, the program is viewed as an ‘intervention’ in which a
treatment comprising the elements of the program being evaluated – is tested for how
well it achieves its objectives, as measured by a pre-specified set of indicators in which the
researcher controls or introduces an intervention and measures its impact on the dependent
variable at least two times (pre- and post-test measurements).
Thus, grammatical performance Test (GPT) was employed as the main procedure to collect
the data in the present study. Although based on the class assignments, it could be
estimated that all of the students in each class were homogenous, in order to eliminate the
pre-existing differences in the two groups and the homogeneity of them and minimize
threats to internal and external validities of the study. The GPT, consisted of (25) items,
used in this study was designed and validated to be used as a pre and post test to measure
the students' performance in the grammatical rules (see Appendix C).
As it can be seen in table 1, Table of Specification was prepared prior to the development
of the test by considering the what, how, where, and when questions to maintain its
comprehensiveness –to include all aspects of passive construction. The test contained three
parts of twenty five items with one mark each. Part (1) is multiple choice questions where
the students were supposed to choose the correct response from different choices in
brackets. It consists of nine items. All the items are authentic. The questions had nine
marks; a point for each item. Part (2) is in the form of sentence correction question. It
focused on an assessment of student comprehension to measure whether the students
completely grasp what they have been taught. It is designed to check students’
comprehension of the grammatical items. This is used to enable the students to apply the
concept of the grammatical item learned productively, not receptively. The question is of
eight marks; one points each. Part (3) is a sentence transformation problem. For example,
the students had to change sentences using simple present tense active into passive. In this
respect, the students were challenged to write a correct sentence to apply the rules. The
question had eight marks; one points each.
32
Table 1: Testing Framework the Distribution of the Grammar Achievement Test
M LC
Questions Areas of Testing
Type
Knowledge comprehension application
multiple

choice
determine
Part 1
the correct
verb form
Identify and Part 2

correct
mistakes in
the
sentences.
Transform
Part 3
active
sentence
into passive
Total
Keys: MLC=Minimum Learning Competencies
sentence
correction

Number
of Items
9
8
sentence
8
transformation
25
3.6. Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected procedurally and this was decided according to the nature of the study
and purpose of using the tool Creswell (2003, 210) insisted that researchers must “convey
the specific strategy for data collection they plan to use”. He suggests the ordering of the
qualitative and quantitative phase is an important dimension of the mixed methods design
and can be sequential or concurrent.
Accordingly, this study adhered to a sequential implementation strategy where respondents
were selected and questionnaire was administered to investigate preference for the teaching
approaches used in teaching Grammar and describe the practice of teaching and learning
grammar before employing other data gathering instruments. On the basis of insights
obtained from students through questionnaire, teachers were interviewed.
Then pre-test for both the experimental and control groups were administered before the
treatment started. Finally, post-test was administered for both groups after the treatment to
see the difference between the pre-test and post-test of each group and between the post
test of the two groups . There were two phases to the process of collecting data: pilot study
33
and main study. All quantitative studies rely on the data being of a sufficiently high
quality, so data quality checks should be performed. Thus, pilot study was conducted.
3.6.1. Piloting of the test
Richards (2001) suggests that piloting of questionnaire is essential to identify ambiguities
and other problems before it is administered. A pilot study involves a small-scale testing of
the data collection that the researcher plans to use in the main study. One of the major
problems in social science research is the accuracy of measuring human behavior or
behavioral attributes (Bosire &Gamba, 2003). With this, the instrument was piloted prior
to its administration to ensure on the accuracy, relevance, appropriateness and technical
aspects of the items and to create a workable instrument. The main purpose of conducting
the pilot study was to check the clarity of the questions wording, syntax, format of the item
stem and response set, order of items within the instrument, and clarity of instructions that
would be used in the main study. Moreover, it was carried out to try out the suitability of
the tests in assessing students’ grammatical performance. Thus, it was conducted at ASS.
The participants were grade 11 students who were attending their education in 2014/2015.
A great care was taken not to include pilot study participants during the main study to
prevent participants overlapping due to this one section (11B) from ASS which was not
included in the experiment and control group was assigned for the purpose. Out of 60
students 20 (33.3%) were randomly selected using lottery system-to participate in the pilot
study. For each respondents code numbers were given to avoid response overlapping.
Many qualitative researchers have emphasized the need for reliability and validity
(Creswell, 2003). The researcher used Cronbach’s alpha coefficient method to determine
reliability of the instrument. Reliability was thereafter computed and analyzed to know
consistency of the items.
After the completion of the pilot study, all necessary
modifications were made to meet the requirements of a reasonable and sound design.
3.6.2. Validity and Reliability of Instrument
Item analysis is a primary quantitative approach for demonstrating validity. The basic
process for conducting Item analysis is to demonstrate a relationship between individual
items until all possible pairings are exhausted (Bachman and Palmer, 1996). We can also
compare the correlation between individual items and the total correlation for all of the
34
items. Item analysis is also used to estimate the reliability of responses within an
instrument referred to as internal consistency reliability, which allows comparing results
across and among items within an instrument with only one administration (Bachman and
Palmer, 1996).
The Validity of the Test: Validity refers to the extent to which the instrument in terms of a
survey or test measures what it intends or claims to measure (Brown, 1988). Therefore,
validity is as important as reliability in evaluating new survey instruments or applying
established survey instruments to new populations (Litwin, 2002). In addition, content
validity is another source of validity evidence to find out “if the data collection procedure
is a good representation of the content which needs to be measured” (Seliger&Shohamy,
1989). Although it is a more subjective measure of the appropriateness of instrument items
or scales, content-related evidence can be accumulated by distributing the instrument to
reviewers who have a sound knowledge of the subject matter (Litwin, 2002). Following
this guideline, the content validity was checked as follows:
A.The Content Validity
Mackey and Gass (2005) state that "Content validity refers to the representativeness of our
measurement regarding the phenomenon about which we want information." In other
words, the test examines what it is intended to measure. In order to check the content
validity, the researcher introduced the test to advisors
teachers
and highly qualified English
and requested their judgment regarding the content and the format
(Fraenkel&Wallen, 2000) and revised the content of the survey several times until they
deemed all the items in the instrument ready for both the pilot testing and the main study.
According to their valuable remarks, the test is modified. The final draft of the test is
shown in Appendix (C).
B. Structure Validity of the Test
Structure validity is the second statistical test used to test the validity of the test structure
by testing the validity of each question and the validity of the whole test. It is measured by
a piloting sample, which consisted of (20) students through measuring the correlation
coefficients between one question and all the questions of the test. Table (2) clarifies the
correlation coefficient for each question and the whole test.
35
Table 2: Correlation Coefficient of Each Question and the Whole of Test
Inter item Correlations
Part 1
1
Part 2
Part 3
R
Sig.
R
.988**
1
Part
2
Sig.
.00
R
.993**
.994**
1
Part
3
Sig.
.00
.00
R
.997**
.995**
.998**
All Questions together
Sig.
.00
.00
.00
R: Pearson Correlation Coefficient,**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Part
1
As it can be seen in table 2, the p-values (Sig.) are less than (0.01), so the correlation
coefficients of all the questions are significant at (α = 0.05).Thus, the questions are valid to
be measured what it was set for to achieve the main aim of the study.
1.Reliability of the Test
To calculate the reliability of the test, the researcher used the following two methods:
1. Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha
The researcher calculated the reliability of the test by using Alpha Cronbach formula, (K)
is the number of items of the test, (σ2χ ) is the variance of the total test marks where ( σ2
) Υί
is the component of the test and (ί) is sample questions of the test (Cronbach and Richard,
2004). The normal range of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha value between (0.0 and + 1.0),
and the higher values reflects a higher degree of internal consistency.
Table 3: Reliability Statistics of each questions and the whole test
Question
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Part 1
.834**
9
Part 2
.841**
8
Part 3
.792**
8
All questions together
.930**
25
Keys:**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
36
As shown in table 3, a reliability analysis on each question that measured the students'
performance in the grammatical rules yielded a coefficient alpha value of
= 0.834,
0.841, 0.792, and respectively. A reliability analysis on the whole items that measured the
students’ performance in the grammatical rules value of Cronbach's Alpha yielded
=0.930. According to this formula, a reliability coefficient closer to 1.00 is regarded as
adequate, and this value is considered high which indicates an excellent reliability of the
entire test.
2.Split Half Method
Table 4: Reliability Statistics between odd and even items
Value
N of Items
Value
EVEN
N of Items
Total N of Items
.892
13
Cronbach's Alpha
.897
12
25
Correlation Between Forms
.982
Equal Length
.991
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Unequal Length
.991
As shown in table 4, the correlation coefficient between the odd and even questions equal
ODD
(0.982). The Spearman-Brown Coefficient (α=0.991). This correlation coefficient is
statistically significant at (α = 0.05), so the test is consistent and valid to measure what it
was set for. Therefore, the researcher proved that the test was valid, reliable, and ready for
distribution for the population sample.
3.6.3. Main study
The data collection for the main study took place between December 2014 and March
2015. It began with a broad survey to generalize results to a population. The questionnaire
to the students was administered by the researcher herself and collected within the
researcher's time schedule. Before the survey began, the researcher explained the content
and the purpose of the questionnaire section to make sure the students knew to answer it. A
total of 60 questionnaires were administered to grade 11th students and 60 (100 %) valid
responses were obtained. The open-ended structured interviews with English teachers were
conducted to collect detailed views from participants after surveying the results of the
students’ questionnaire.
37
The four English language teachers were approached separately. During the interview, the
data collected were recorded on audio-tape and field notes were taken. To limit the
participants’ disturbance, the researcher informed them that notes would be taken during
the interview. Permission to use the tape recorder was sought before the interview. All (4)
of the participants were consented to its use.
The grammar performance test was prepared by the researcher to measure the students'
performance in the grammatical rules. The researcher designed the test according to her
own experience. As Ellis & Levy (2009) argue that every research conducted includes a set
of assumptions. The researcher adopted the following known assumptions from Leedy and
Ormrod (2010) of random assignment, group composition, Manipulation of the treatment
conditions and consistency of treatments, Outcome measures, and Group comparisons for
the research.
Since the success of quasi-experimental methods depends greatly on the quality of data
collected, some sort of assurance of quality should be provided. These methods are based
on the assumptions of the ‘parallel trends assumption’ i.e., that the trend in outcomes in
treatment and comparison groups was similar before the intervention. Where this
assumption is correct, the intervention impact estimate made using this method would be
unbiased. If there are differences between the groups that change over time, however, then
this method will not help to eliminate these differences.
To make the analysis objective and reduce researcher bias, different techniques were
employed such as triangulation with the theory of Grammar Teaching approaches and
proof-reading by respective advisors to make some comments. At last, interpretation of the
findings and conclusions were drawn inductively. The sums of the gathered data were used
to recommend effective grammar teaching approach for EFL students.
3.7. Treatment Procedures
All research procedures and testing related to this study here done when the participants
were’ out of regular class time. Only one lesson was taught per class period, and each
lesson lasted no longer than 45 minutes following 30 minutes for practice session. To
minimize teacher’s bias, the investigator was in charge of teaching all lessons to both
sections in both treatment conditions.
38
In order to control researcher bias, a few lessons were peer reviewed to ensure that the
investigator did not favor one approach over the other.
Overview of Teacher's Guide
English for Ethiopia student textbook Grade 11 deals with the four major language skills;
listening, speaking, reading and writing, Language focus and vocabulary: increase your
word power. Grade 11 therefore continues to develop all four skills, but also aims to
extend grammatical and lexical structures so that students can understand and use a range
of language. Each unit starts with a learning outcome related to the topic and which is
applicable across the skills. Each unit also has a language focus divided into grammar,
vocabulary and social expressions. The grammar focus is the main structures/items that are
revised or introduced in the unit. The grammatical rules are clearly presented and
explained, and the exercises that are designed to help students to apply these rules in
context. This is what the researcher has focused on. To present the grammar lesson the
teacher tried to elicit students’ prior knowledge of aspect of grammar before they studied
the notes in the student textbook. Eliciting students’ previous knowledge of a structure will
help them to build on what they already know. The teacher's book consists of the
following: The general aims of the lessons included in the study, learning outcomes of
each unit, teaching resources, Activities used by the teachers to help students in learning,
and Procedures to be followed by the teachers.
3.8. Methods of Data Analysis
The main aim of the design was to identify the effective approach of teaching grammar
enabling students’ improve of grammar, so the students’ Means of both groups test score
were used to compare the performance of both groups. T-test for correlated means was
used for pre-­post comparisons to determine whether there was a statistically significant
difference between the means of two matched but independent samples and t-test for
independent means was also used to compare the effects of inductive vs. deductive
approach on student performance. Panko(2007)recommended that qualitative methods are
used in conjunction with quasi-experimental methods to gain better insights into ‘why’ a
program has worked or not.
39
In reporting the findings the researcher discusses the size of the effect as well as its
significance. The first step involves identifying the indicators of outcomes and impacts to
be measured relevant to the intervention being evaluated. Following this, the differences in
indicator values from before and after the intervention for the treatment group were
compared with the differences in the same values for the comparison group.
in order to identify the effects of inductive Vs. deductive approach of teaching active and
passive voice on 11th grade students grammatical performance rate, the mean difference
for both the treatment group and the comparison group would be calculated and then the
difference between the two examined, i.e., by looking at the difference between changes in
the grammatical performance rate of students who participated in the treatment compared
to those who did not.
The results could be analyzed and reported for the entire sample as well as for important
(predefined) subgroups (e.g., by approaches used) to identify and discuss any differential
effects. The findings then used to answer the research questions. These types of analyses
would help the researcher to identify concrete recommendations, which should make up
the conclusion of the report.
3.8.1. Quantitative method of data analysis
Quantitative data from questionnaire and test were analyzed using descriptive and
inferential statistics. Percentages have been rounded up or down to a whole number [using
simple rule that 0.5 and above are rounded up and below 0.5 are rounded down] to make
the table easier to read.
The statistical analysis of the questionnaires and test results were performed through
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 (Inc., 2011) for window. The
researcher conducted SPSS because the Statistical software is dedicated to run large data
sets and conducting all manners of quantitative data analysis, specifically designed to carry
out quantitative data analysis. It was used to produce descriptive statistics for the total;
means, frequencies, standard deviations as well as the relative percentages for each item.
The descriptive statistics results of each item were displayed in tables.
40
Two parametric tests of statistical significance were used to determine whether there is a
statistically significant difference between the means of samples. T-test for correlated and
t-test for independent means were used for pre-­post comparisons to determine whether
there was a statistically significant difference between the means of two matched, or
independent samples. A significance level of α=0.05 was assumed to examine the
discrepancy between the control and experiment groups’ success rates among students
learning inductively against those learning deductively. The mean scores of the pre-test
and the post-test of the experimental and control groups were calculated in order to have
the opportunity to compare the groups test results which implies grammatical performance
before and after the experiment and between the post-tests of two groups.
Thus, Independent Samples t-test for independent means was used to determine whether there
was a statistically significant difference between the means of two independent samples. To
identify the effective approach, t-test for correlated means was used for pre-post comparisons
to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the means of two
independent samples.
The researcher used 0.05 significant levels (p-value) because it informed the researcher
about the degree of confidence that could be existed in the findings. It indicates the
probability of getting a mean difference between the groups as high as what is observed by
chance. The lower the-value, the more significant the difference between the groups
(Adams, 2007). A significant difference (p<0.05) obtained on grammar performance test
results would mean that there was mean difference between the scores of the groups of
learners. If p<0.05 then this is taken as an acceptance of significance. The p value is then
compared to the alpha level (0.05) to make the determination of whether this pair is
significantly different or not. Therefore, if there was a significant difference (that is, p <
0.05) an asterisk (*) was put on the p-value; however, if there was no significant difference
(that is, prob.> 0.05), no asterisk is put on the p-value. Thus A null hypothesis was
formulated which stated:
There is no difference between the mean score of the students taught by Inductive method
and deductive method in teaching passive voice
41
3.8. 2.Qualitative Data analysis
Qualitative data for the present study was collected via the one-on-one interviews
conducted with four participants at the beginning of the quantitative data collection phase.
The data source was analyzed and interpreted separately, but integrated in the discussion to
triangulate or elaborate on the aforementioned quantitative findings.
Qualitative data that were collected through the open-ended questions from the structured
interview with English language teachers were analyzed inductively using qualitative
methods of data analysis. Phenomenological analysis was also employed as it makes use of
data related to teachers’ experience and classroom implementation of grammar teaching
approaches. Therefore, qualitative data were analyzed on the basis of the content of the text
or information that was provided by the respondents. Finally, the data that were collected
from different sources: the questionnaires surveys, structured interviews, and grammatical
performance Test were organized, described and interpreted in an integrated manner using
descriptive methods of data analysis. While analyzing the data, the researcher integrated
themes generated through instruments and induce the data for interpretation to reach on
sound conclusions.
42
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Introduction
This section of the research presents analyses and interprets the data collected through
different tools. The data were collected from students using preliminary questionnaire and
the pre and post grammatical performance tests. Structured interview was conducted with
English language teachers. First, data collected through questionnaires which were
administered at the beginning of the treatment phase to assess students’ practice regarding
the two approaches used to teach grammar lessons in classroom was presented from the
perspective of learners. Then data from the teachers’ interview on how the approaches in
teaching English grammar points have been taught to high school students is the point of
triangulation and the practice of teachers towards these approaches were described.
Finally, the results of pretest and posttest which were administered with the aim of
evaluating students’ grammatical
performance
before and after the treatment were
presented.
4.2. Background of Respondents
Table 5: Students’ Educational Level, Sex and Sample Distributions
Population
Education
Samples
Sex
M
M
№
Grade 11
F
%
№
№
Total
%
№
F
%
№
Total
%
№
%
60
50
%
81 67.5 39 32.5 120 100
40 66.7
20 33.3
Keys: M=male, =female
Demographic information was collected prior to the treatment phase through a background
questionnaire, as shown in table 5. It revealed that the total population of students of the
two sections was 120 (100%) from which 60 (50 %) samples were selected. The sample 40
(66.7 %) of the 60 participants were male and 20 were female (33.3 %).
43
Table 6: Teachers Work experience, Qualification and Sample Distribution
Population
Sample
Work Experience
Sex
Qualification
№
%
M
%
№
%
1-5 years
1
25
1
25
BA
1
25
6-10 years
1
25
1
25
BA
1
25
11-15 years
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>15 years
2
50
2
50
BA
2
50
Total
4
100
4
100
4
4
100
Demographic information was collected through a background question. The first question
was general. Teachers were requested to introduce themselves and tell about their
professional experience and qualification. Regarding the English teachers’ work
experience, they taught from 5 to 33 years. As indicated in table 6, 2(50 %) of the teachers
served for more than 15 years. The rest 2(25%) served for 5 and 10 years respectively.
The majority 4(100 %) of them were male and none of them was female. Four of the
English language teachers had first degree that could enable them to work at the first cycle
four government secondary schools. This implied that majority of participants had
sufficient work experience to participate in
providing information on the different
approaches in which English grammar points might be presented to high school students.
The implications for the presence of respondents with the first and significant number of
years of experience of respondents helped the researcher to obtain sufficient data on
evaluating the two approaches featured in this investigation. This was meant that the
participants had enough qualification to forward their opinion towards the way English
grammar points were being taught to students of ASS.
4.3. The Practice of Inductive and Deductive Approaches of teaching grammar in the
actual classroom.
This sub-section comprises two parts of data collected from students through preliminary
questionnaire and interviews with English teachers at the beginning of the treatment phase
to answer the first question which stated: “To what extent inductive and deductive
approaches were practiced in the actual classroom?”
44
4.3.1. Students’ practice of learning grammar in deductive and inductive approaches at
school
This part deals with lessons being with the students’ actual practice of grammar conducted
in English language classroom at school. To obtain more information, the questionnaire
was designed to assess students’ perception regarding the practice of the two approaches
used to teach grammar in English language classroom at school from the perspective of
teachers. Students were asked to indicate the extent they practiced with reference to several
activities when learning grammar in English language classroom. And tick the number that
best describes to what degree they agree with the statements to answer the second research
question. The five-point scales ratings consisted of the following descriptors: 1 implies
Not at all, 2=rarely, 3 =Sometimes, 4= usually, and 5 implies Always. The detail
discussions of the results are presented in the following sub sections.
Table 7: Descriptive statistics for the practice of grammar lessons in English language
classroom at school
Statements
1. I apply grammatical rules given by the teacher to
various sentences given as examples.
2. I practice to apply the grammar rules through the study
before using them in example sentences.
3. I practice with the rules first and produce my own
examples at the end of the lesson.
4. I work to understand grammatical rules from the
examples given by the teacher.
5. I work on sentences as examples before trying to
discover grammar rules by myself.
6 I practice the grammatical rules orally and in writing by
creating my own examples.
7. I apply the grammatical rules with various sentences both
orally and in writing after the teacher explain the rules.
8. Teacher presents grammatical rules orally and in writing
before applying the rule with example sentences.
9. I practice with the rules before producing my own oral
and written sentences as examples.
10. My teacher starts the lesson with presentation of the
grammar rules both orally and in writing.
N=60
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
A
36
60.0
4
6.7
33
55.0
4
6.7
1
1.7
2
3.3
37
61.7
38
63.3
35
58.3
45
75.0
Response
U
S
11
2
18.3 3.3
6
10
10.0 16.7
6
10
10.0 16.7
6
10
10.0 16.7
5
7
8.3 11.7
5
6
8.3 10.0
13
2
21.7 3.3
13
2
21.7 3.3
10
4
16.7 6.7
13
1
21.7 1.7
Keys: A= Always, U= usually, S=Sometimes, R=rarely, NA= Not at all
R
6
10.0
11
18.3
8
13.3
11
18.3
9
15.0
15
25.0
3
5.0
3
5.0
5
8.3
1
1.7
NA
5
8.3
29
48.3
3
5.0
29
48.3
38
63.3
32
53.3
5
8.3
4
6.7
6
10.0
45
As shown in table 7, students indicated the extent to which they practiced several activities
with reference to learning grammar in English language classroom. Accordingly, when
this was seen with respect to each item, the activities with the highest percentages were
45(75 %) of students stated that the teacher always started the lesson with presentation of
the grammar rules both orally and in writing. On the other hand, 38(63.3 %) of students
stated that their teacher presented grammatical rules orally and in writing before applying
the rule with example sentences. Similarly, 37(61.7 %) of them replied as students always
applied the grammatical rules with various sentences both orally and in writing after the
teacher explained the rules.
In addition, 36(60 %) of the respondents said they always applied grammatical rules given
by the teacher as examples to various sentences. Some, 35(58.3 %), of students stated as
they always practiced with the rules before
producing their own oral and written
sentences as examples. 33(55.0 %) of them described as they always practiced with the
rules first and produce their own examples at the end of the lesson when learning grammar
in English language classroom. This shows that the students always practiced these
activities in learning grammar in their study at a high level.
As shown in table 7, the students had the practice of learning grammar through deductive
and inductive approaches that had the tendency from not at all to always. Further analysis
suggested that majority 45(75 %) of them identified their teacher as they always start the
lesson with presentation of the grammar rules both orally and in writing activity in the
actual classroom.
Thus, in attempting to investigate the students’ practice of learning grammar in the
classroom, the findings revealed that the students accustomed learning rules first and
go for practice. The implication for the result showed that the students’ response towards
the frequency of items referring the practice of several activities when learning grammar in
English language classroom was based on deductive approach. In deductive grammar
instruction, rules are given before the illustration of examples, and learners are required to
memorize these rules so that they can apply them to make meaningful sentences (Erlam,
2003). Practice plays an important role in successful grammar teaching, especially in the
case of EFL. For this reason, Ellis (2002) and Richards (2002) defined the term practice
and claimed that practice is one of the keys to learning incorporated into a methodology
with specific grammar feature is isolated for focused attention; learners are required to
46
produce sentences or statements comprising the targeted feature; learners will be provided
with opportunities for repetition of the targeted feature; there is expectation that the
learners will perform the grammatical feature correctly; and the learners receive feedback
(immediate or delayed) on whether their performance of the grammatical structure is
correct or incorrect.
4.3.2. English Teachers’ practice of using deductive and inductive approaches to teach
grammar at school
In this section, the analyses and findings of the data collected from four English language
teachers were presented. To ease the analysis, participant teachers were coded from T1T4. Thus, these codes were used all the way. Interviews with the four English teachers
were conducted in English. Four English teachers who were currently teaching at ASS
were interviewed to find out their practices towards presenting grammar points to high
school students. A set of guiding questions was designed in relation to the research
questions and purposes of the study (see Appendix 2). Technical terms such as inductive
and deductive approaches were explained to participants during the interview so as to
prevent any misunderstanding. Each interview was recorded digitally and transcribed
verbatim soon after completion by the investigator (see Appendix 4). Their responses are
summarized below.
In response to item 1, when teachers were asked how they presented grammatical items to
students based on their practice of teaching grammar, evidences from interviews indicated
that they gave much attention on creating opportunities for their students to practice
grammatical items using different context, (different examples sentences and activities). In
light of this, T1 responded that: first I introduce familiar words, short sentences with clear
examples and use different strategies, contexts combining with their background
knowledge which give them equal chance to practice. Similarly T2 gave much attention to
present grammatical items using different sentences and allow the students to practice each
other to develop their English grammar. T3 stated “first I explain the grammar points with
different examples and allow the students to practice.” T4 said: “I present grammatical
items using different context including real objects.”
47
From teachers’ responses, it is possible to realize that four of them agreed that they gave
attention in giving students to practice using the structure through rule explanations of the
grammar points with different example sentences.
In response to item 2, when teachers were asked if they gave students example sentences of
new language and let them discover grammatical rule, three of them expressed as they
presented the new grammatical items to students but did not let them discover grammatical
rule. In light of this, T1 responded: “when I teach new language item, I explain the
grammar rule or structure. Then I give them some clues or examples and give chance to
practice at the end. But it is difficult for them to discover grammatical rule by their own.
Similarly T2 focused more on practice the rule. Regarding this, he stated “I focus more on
practice the rule. I help them to discover grammatical rule as their understanding is not
satisfactory.” T3 response illustrates this point: “I give examples of new language, but it is
difficult for them to discover grammatical rule by themselves.”
In contrast, one of the respondents T4 expressed disagreement as he did not present the
new grammatical items to students and let them discover grammatical rule. In this regard,
T4 forwarded: “first I explained the grammar rule or structure with some clues or
examples. Then gave chance to practice at the end. This signifies that T4 gave students
example sentences of new language, but he did not let them discover grammatical rule.
From teachers’ responses, it is possible to deduce that they gave attention to giving
students example of new language and chance to practice without letting students discover
grammatical rule by themselves. This in turn indicates that four of the teachers’ expressed
that their students ability to discover grammatical rule by themselves was weak.
In response to item 3, whether they thought giving grammatical explanation was useful.
Evidences from interviews indicated that the entire (four) English teachers said that giving
grammatical explanation was useful. In light of this, T1 responded the following: giving
grammatical explanation is useful way of teaching any content. I give short explanation
and write on the board. Similarly T2 gave much attention to grammatical items
explanation. Regarding this, he stated that” giving grammatical explanation is useful. By
using practice and let them communicate or link grammatical rule. I give or write the rule
and underline it on the board.” T3 gave much attention to grammar in use. He Stated “this
may be useful after giving them grammar in use –in a sentence but giving grammatical
48
explanation is not useful. He said” I give grammar explanation orally and write the rule
on the board and underline it“. From teachers’ responses, it is possible to deduce that the
entire (four) English teachers said that giving grammatical explanation is useful.
In response to item 4, the English teachers were requested if they gave sequences of
questions to the students until they accurately understand grammatical rules and conclude
those rules by themselves and explain the reason. Evidences from interviews indicated that
two of the English teachers gave sequences of questions to the students. In light of this, T3
responded the following: Yes, because asking sequences of questions in class is very
important to help students to understand and identify grammatical rule correctly and to
discover the rule by themselves. Similarly T2 responded” I have been trying to give
different questions but the knowledge of the students is very less to conclude those rules by
themselves because their background do not make them to be active.”
On the other hand T4 stated as “he gives sequences of questions to the students to some
extent, but it isn’t always true because it takes time and the student can’t answer correctly.”
In contrast, one of the respondents T1 responded as he did not give sequences of questions
to the students. Regarding this, he stated that “No I don’t, because it is not convenient for
me to follow this way of teaching approach. In classroom, there are different students who
needs additional assistance, but the time allocated to cover the daily lesson plan isn’t much
enough. In addition, understanding grammatical rules is not a short time activity which
students correct this weakness. And for me it is tiresome activity to do this.”
From teachers’ responses, it is possible to deduce that three of the teachers gave their
reason that student’s weakness to conclude those rules by themselves and the time
allocated to cover the daily lesson plan as a major obstacle to implement the approach. The
reason the respondents gave was that they had shortage of time and the students’ inability
to discover the rule by themselves.
In response to item 5, the English teachers were requested if they made students practice
with the rules and produce their own examples at the end of the lesson. Evidences from
interviews indicated that the entire (four) English teachers expressed as they did. In light of
this, T3 responded the following: Yes, but this is sometimes impossible or difficult for
students to produce their own examples.” Similarly T2 responded “Of course I do. But all
of the students can’t do this, except 3 or 4 students.” T4: “sure unless how can I evaluate
49
them.”On the other hand T1 said as he does it to some extent.T1stated “this is really what
is performed in the classroom to test where my students are. Even if this ability to have
knowledge is different from individual to individual, checking students understanding of
the topic is important.”
From teachers’ responses, it is possible to deduce that four of them made students practice
with the rules but students do not able to produce their own examples at the end of the
lesson. This happened because of the students’ inability to produce their own examples at
the end of the lesson. The result is consistent with the response obtained in item 4. The
implication for the result suggested that the students’ inability to produce their own
example was caused by their background. Similarly, the English teachers were asked if
they engaged students to discover grammar rules out of the given example sentences
(passage) by themselves. In response to item 6, Evidences from interviews indicated that
the entire (four) English teachers gave much attention on engaging students to discover
grammar rules out of the given example sentences (passage) but found it difficult for them
to discover grammar rules by themselves. In light of this, T3 responded the following:
“YES,I do. This is actually depending on their prior knowledge. Many students are not
active for this matter only. Some students engage themselves in doing the activity; most of
them do not have awareness to do that. In general, it is difficult for them to discover
grammar rules out of the given text or sentences by themselves.” Similarly T2 responded
“YES,I do. But I am not satisfied or it is somewhat difficult and time taking. T3 expressed:
“YES,I do. But without the help of the teacher they are not interested to discover the rule
and always they expect from me as they see it difficult.” T4: “YES, I engage students to
discover grammar rules, but their participation is less.”From teachers’ responses, it is
possible to deduce that four of them engaged students to discover grammar rules out of the
given example sentences (passage) by themselves but their students had problems to do.
Generally, it is possible to infer that the participants agreed that engaging students to
discover grammar rules out of the given example sentences (passage) by themselves. The
implication for the result suggested that the students’ inability to produce their own
example was caused by because of their background. However, the researcher assumes as
this could happen partly because these students have problem of using appropriate
strategies which fit the nature of tasks and activities given.
50
In response to item 7, when the English teachers were requested if they taught grammar
starting with examples of sentences, which include the target grammar that students would
learn as they said that they did. In light of this, T1 responded the following: “YES, But
mostly I give examples after giving rule explanation because students can easily
understand.” Similarly, T2 responded “YES, I tried, because it helps the students to
develop and understand the knowledge of grammar including using it in the future.” T3
YES, because if I give them more examples, they can understand more. On the other hand
T4 stated: “to clarify the lesson I provide different examples.” Evidences from interviews
indicated that the entire (four) English teachers gave much attention on starting with
examples of sentences after giving rule explanation because they felt students can easily
understand. From teachers’ responses, it is possible to deduce that four of them gave much
attention to grammatical items explanation.
In response to item 8, when the English teachers were requested if they presented the rule
before providing enough practice on using the structure. Evidences from interviews
indicated that three of the English teachers presented the rule before providing enough
practice on using the structure as they said YES. In light of this, T1 responded the
following: “I usually do at the beginning to present the rule. Then it must be supported by
different practices in order to strengthen the ability of the students in such structure.”
Similarly, T4 responded “Sure, first I deliver the rule and structure of grammar and I
proceed to practice.” T2: YES, I do.” In contrast one of the respondents T3 responded as
he did not present the rule before providing enough practice on using the structure as he
said NO. From the teachers’ response, it is possible to deduce that three of them gave much
attention at presenting the rule before providing enough practice in order to strengthen the
students’ ability on using the structure.
In response to item 9, the English teachers were requested if and why they presented the
grammar lesson starting from general to specific one. Evidences from interviews indicated
that three of them didn’t present the grammar lesson starting from general to specific one.
In light of this, T1 responded the following: No, I don’t. It is really difficult for the
students when we teach any item starting from general to specific one. The students are
confused and dislike learning finally the result of teaching in this way affected the teaching
and learning process. Similarly, T2 responded NO; I don’t because I have been starting
from specific to general.
51
This way makes them, simply to understand the lesson. And T3 responded: NO, as a
teacher I have to start from general to specific. First, I give examples and then to the rule.
In contrast one of the respondents T4 responded as he did.
Regarding this, he stated that “YES, I start from general to specific because to make the
lesson ease for students to understand the lesson. From teachers’ responses, it is possible to
deduce that majority (75 %) of them didn’t present the grammar lesson starting from
general to specific one.
In response to item 10, when the English teachers were requested if they provided
students with opportunities to use new language in a free and more creative way.
Evidences from interviews indicated that 4 (100 %) of them d agreed on the item as they
said YES. In light of this, T2 responded the following: YES, I help and encourage students
to have good participation to use their language freely and more creatively. Similarly, T3
responded: YES. I give them a chance to speak or write on black board, to speak or write
freely using new language item. Similarly T4 regarding this, he stated that”: YES, because
to help them to memorize what they learnt I give them the opportunity. T1: of course yes.
From teachers’ responses, it is possible to deduce that all (100 %) of them provided
students with opportunities to use new language in a free and more creative way. It helps
and encourages students to have good participation to use their language freely and more
creatively.
In response to item 11, If they thought students performed better in their grammatical
ability as per their teaching and why? Evidences from interviews indicated that three (75
%) of them agreed on the item as they said YES. In light of this, T1 responded the
following: YES, even if there is a wide gap between the students. There are very slow
learners, at the same time there are medium, and very fast learners. In general, they do
better after learning each grammar lesson. Similarly, T3 responded: YES, because after my
teaching, I ask them different questions or exercises and I get students when they do better
before teaching because I teach them by giving many examples. Similarly Regarding this,
T4 stated that” :YES, the main purpose of my evaluation is to identify their level of
understanding, and there is improvement after teaching. In contrast one of the respondents
T2 responded his dissatisfaction.
52
Regarding this, he stated that not satisfactory, because after teaching, I give exercise and
they do it, but still they have difficulties to use the new grammatical structure in writing or
speaking.
The finding
suggested
English teachers gave sequences of questions to the students
until they accurately understand grammatical rules, made students practice with the rules
and produce their own examples at the end of the lesson. English teachers engaged
students to discover grammar rules out of the given example sentences (paragraph) by
themselves but it was difficult for the students to discover grammatical rule by themselves.
Thus they taught grammar starting with examples of sentences after rule explanation
because it helps the students to develop and understand the knowledge of grammar
including using it in the future. The result from interviews suggested that the majority of
participants could be knowledgeable for having awareness on the different approaches in
which English grammar points might be presented to high school students. And they
favored to follow deductive approach. Since deductive approach proceeds from the
presentation of rule to the provision of examples in which the rule is applied followed by
language practice that learners can be engaged in. It also involves applying a general rule
to specific instances or working situation. Moreover, in teaching grammar, a teacher
explains rules of the language and tries to make learners understand and memorize them.
This was consistent with what the students reflected regarding the way they learnt
grammar issues. The finding revealed that teachers of English gave the priority of teaching
grammar to assist learners to internalize the structures/rules of language. Ellis (2002)
asserts for most teachers of English, the priority of teaching grammar is to assist learners to
internalize the structures/rules of language, taught in such a way that they can be used for
communication both written and spoken.
4.4. Effects of the teaching approaches
The focus of the study was to investigate the effect of inductive and deductive approaches
of teaching grammar on the students’ grammatical performance. The GPT was one of the
study instruments which aimed at measuring the effect of teaching grammar in the
students’ grammatical performance to answer the second and third research question which
asked: “What is the extent of differences in performance rates between students' mean
scores of pre and posttests? and What is the impact of inductive Vs. deductive approaches
of teaching Active and passive voice on students’ grammatical performance?”respectively.
53
The two groups of students who were taught in the two approaches of teaching grammar
were assessed using identical tests which
were designed parallel to the lesson and
administered as the pre-test and the post-test to both groups. The collected data were
analyzed and treated statistically through the use of SPSS. In the discussion here under
grammatical performance, taking the test result on voices, was mostly used almost all the
way for actual description and overall grammatical performance.
4.4.1. The grammar pre-test
The grammar pre-test was administered at the beginning phase of the experiment with the
aim to assess students’ baseline knowledge of comparison groups of students grammatical
performance and got accurate information about individual performance differences at the
beginning of the study. It was applied upon the pre experimental and control groups to
prove groups equivalence performance rates between students' mean scores. The results
were recorded and statistically analyzed as shown in table 8. Table 8 showed
theComparison of grammatical performance scores between the Pre-Control and Pre
Experimental in the pre-test.
Table 8: Mean score on pre-test
Group Statistics
Group
Independent Samples Test
N
M
Std
T-test for Equality of Means
t
Df
Sig. Mean
Difference
Pre Experimental 30
Pre-Control
8.67 3.79
30 7.30 4.01
1.36
58
.18
1.37
95% CI
Lower
Upper
-.65
3.38
Keys: * the mean value is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), M= Mean, Std. =Standard
Deviation, 95% CI =Confidence Interval of the Difference
With the respect of data presented in table 9, there are (30) students in the PreExperimental group, and they have a mean value of (M=8.67), with a standard deviation of
(3.79). There are (30) students in the Pre-Control group, and they have a mean value of
(M=7.30), with a standard deviation of (4.01).The table also shows that the value of
independent samples T-Test equals (t = 1.36), (p-value = 0.18).
54
The t test for independent sample mean revealed that there is statistically insignificant
difference with mean difference of 1.37 at 0.18>.05 between students' mean scores of
pretest of the grammatical performance test of the control and experimental groups. That
is, though the students pre-test mean score of the experimental group (mean=8.67) was
slightly higher than that of the control group (mean=7.30). This difference was not
statistically significant between how well both groups did on the pretest at 0.05 levels. This
implies that the students in both groups were at equivalent level of grammatical
performance before the treatment.
4.4.2. The grammar post test
To compare the effects of inductive vs. deductive approach on student performance, an
independent t-test was used. Descriptive statistics for the students’ performance on posttest in both groups are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations for Two Groups on Post-test
Group Statistics
Test
N
Group
T-test for Means
M
Std
t
Post
30
30
Experimental
Control
17.47
4.38
13.00
4.78
df
3.77
58
Sig.
.00*
Key:* significant differences at the 0.05 level
According to table 9, the mean score of the experimental group (M =17.47) was much higher
than that of the control group (M =13.00). Significant mean difference was found (t = 3.77, p
=.00 <.05); both groups performed differently on the post-test. the pre-test and the post-test
mean scores of both groups showed that although they learned grammatical items through
different teaching procedures (the inductive and deductive approach), the independent sample
test proved there was statistically significant differences between both groups grammatical
performance at 0.00*<0.05 in favor of the experimental. This result suggested that the
inductive approach was more effective than the deductive one in teaching voices. To determine
the effectiveness of learning English grammar through deductive Vs inductive approach t-test
for correlated means was used for pre-­post comparisons to determine whether there was a
statistically significant difference between the means of two independent samples.
55
The results were recorded and statistically analyzed. Table 10 showed the mean scores of both
groups on the pre-test and the post-test.
Table 10: t-test for correlated means
Test(N= 60)
Pre Experimental
Post Experimental
Pre Control
Post Control
Keys:
M
8.67
17.47
7.30
13.00
Std
3.79
PRE - POST
4.38
4.01
M
Std.
-8.8
2.31
t
-20.9
df
29
-14.2
PRE -POST
-5.7
2.20
Sig.
0.0*
0.0*
29
4.78
* the mean value is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), M= Mean, Std.
=Standard Deviation, df= Degree of freedom
The data in table 10 shows, the two groups made gains from the pre-tests to the post-tests
and the post-tests (t= -20.9 and -14.2), with Sig. (p-value) level of 0.00*and negative
effects for the two groups were maintained because there was a significant difference
between the two groups, p = .00. The sign of the t-test is negative, and then the mean of
post grammatical performance test of both groups were significantly higher than the
groups’ pre test grammatical performance. This implies both the experimental and control
groups did significantly better in the post-tests than the pre-tests. Furthermore the
interaction shows the relative superiority of the inductive group over the control group
with no crossovers between the two groups after the treatments (as shown in Table 9).
That is, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there exists a significant difference
between the pre-tests and the post-tests mean scores in both groups at 0.05 levels. This
implies both the experimental and control groups did significantly better in the post-tests
than the pre-tests. So the null hypothesis of there was no significant difference between
the mean score of the students taught by Inductive and deductive method in teaching
passive voice was rejected.
Although the English grammar performance of the experimental and control groups
before the treatment was similar, the experimental group gained higher grammatical
performance scores better than the control group did. This higher performance rate of the
experimental group possibly was a consequence of learning English grammar through an
inductive approach.
56
Inductive approach is effective in teaching second or foreign language grammar (Haight
et al., 2007; Paesani, 2005; Takimoto, 2005; Wang, 2002). Inductive approach creates a
context of autonomous, meaningful learning (Herron & Cole, 2007; Wang, 2002). It
encourages active rather than passive participation of students in the learning process. In
contrast to a conventional deductive approach, an inductive approach involves a process
of generalizing or discovering rules from given examples rather than learning rules
directly (Erlam, 2003). Wang (2002) indicated that learning via such approach helped
develop rule-discovering skill and thus enhanced student performance. Takimoto,
(2005)claimed that an inductive approach, in particular, in foreign language grammar
instruction allows students to discover grammar rules on their own and thus facilitates
their recall of linguistic structures. Takimoto (2005) asserted that students who learned
grammar rules inductively could remember the rules longer.
The difference in English grammar performance between the two groups can be explained
Firstly, an inductive approach in the experiment involves questions asked by the teacher in
class. The teacher gave sequences of questions until the students were able to aware of
grammatical rules and concludes those rules by themselves. The teacher's questions
encourage the students to be enthusiastic to pay more attention to the lessons. Teachers '
questions help students induce or prompt the target rules in order to write complete
sentences correctly.
Secondly, learning English grammar through an inductive approach continuously by using
examples of paragraphs and sentences for five weeks can be one factor that helped students
in the experimental group to learn the targeted skills better than students in the control
group. The students liked it when the teacher gave examples of paragraphs or sentences
which were easy to understand.
Those examples motivated them to realize grammatical rules in these practical examples.
Moreover, examples of paragraphs, phrases or sentences helped them to be able to notice
their similarity of parallel structures in those examples. According to Winter (1989), with
the inductive approach, students learned by numerous examples of a structure until they
can use that structure automatically. Thirdly, teaching process is very important in learning
English through an inductive approach. The teacher started the lesson up from difficult one
to easier one, so the students were not confused about the lessons.
57
From activities in this class, the students realized that understanding the constituents of
sentence structures was more important than memorizing. Assigning to work in pair or
group satisfied students because they were more enthusiastic and confident.
At the end of the lesson, summarizing grammatical rules by students themselves, which
was a new technique in learning process, helped them to understand the grammatical items
better. A teacher giving feedback of grammatical errors in phrases or sentences in class
helped students to apply those grammatical rules and found a corrected answer by
themselves. Fourthly, lesson conclusion or summary is one factor playing an important role
in learning English grammar through an inductive approach. Summarizing grammatical
rules from sentence examples by themselves made students got the habit of summarizing
the grammar rules whenever being stimulated. The students were able to gain grammatical
rules, to correct them and to conclude those grammatical rules by themselves correctly.
Lastly, class participation is one of main activities in an inductive approach which allowed
students to gain the knowledge of grammar in class subconsciously. The students had
enough opportunities in class participation given by a teacher in classroom. Activities
helped them to think and be able to apply grammatical rules for paragraph writing well. An
opportunity to read parallel phrases or sentences given by a teacher satisfies students a lot
because they could acquire and learned the similarities of those examples. Class
participation reflects the acquisition process that children learn by being in contact with the
language and using it, then finding rules and applying them to new contexts (Krashen,
2000).
58
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Summary
The main purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of inductive and deductive
approaches of teaching grammar on students’ grammatical performance with reference to
Active and Passive voice at Aweday secondary school. The study was also aimed at
assessing the practice of teaching/learning grammar through deductive and inductive
approaches as far as the effect on grammatical performance is highly dependent on it. The
Quasi-experiment research design was employed to ground the research, achieve the
research objectives formulated and address the research problem. This study used
Nonequivalent control group design with pre and posttest design that included the
matching of participants prior to random assignment to control group or experimental
group. Descriptive method was employed to collect and analyze the data generated from
instruments. The study attempted to find answers to the following research questions:
1. To what extent inductive and deductive approaches practiced in the actual classroom?
2. What is the extent of differences in performance rates between students' mean scores of
pre and posttests?
3. What is the impact of inductive vs. deductive approaches of teaching Active and passive
voice on students’ grammatical performance?
Target respondents of this study were 60grade eleven students attending their education, and 4
English language teachers who were teaching at ASS in the academic year 2014/15. Matching
and stratifying method of group assignment was utilized to ensure that the control group and
experiment group were as alike as possible at the start of the experiment. The first groups of
participants were grade 11 students made up of two intact classes, which were randomly
assigned to the two classes: an experimental group and a control group. The second groups of
respondents consisted of four English language teachers who had been teaching English at the
same school.
The researcher used the inductive approach of teaching grammar in teaching the
experimental group and the deductive approach of teaching grammar in teaching the
control group. A 5-Point Likert Scale questionnaire, structured interview, and grammar
test were used to collect data.The data were collected in two phases. First pilot study was
conducted on 20 grade 11students prior to implementing the main study. A grammar
59
Performance test, which focused on
the use of voices, with three parts containing (25)
items was designed to be used as pre and post test to reveal the effect of grammar teaching
approaches on the students' grammatical performance.
The test was validated by the advisors and Pearson correlation coefficient was used to
testify. The reliability of the test was measured by Cronbach’s Alpha formula and Split
Half Method. A reliability analysis on the items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient value of =0.93 and this value was considered high which indicated an
excellent reliability of the entire test. The correlation coefficient between the odd and even
questions yielded 0.982 was found statistically significant at (α = 0.05), so the researcher
proved that the test was valid, reliable, and ready for distribution for the population
sample.
In the main study, first students’ questionnaires were administered to sample students to
find out their practices towards learning grammar through inductive and deductive
approaches. A total of 60 questionnaires were administered and 60 (100 %) valid
responses were obtained. Next open-ended structured interviews with English teachers
were conducted to find out their practices towards presenting grammar points to high
school students.
Finally, pre and posttest were administered to reveal the students' grammatical
performance and the effect of using the approach of teaching grammar on the students'
grammatical performance in each group before and after the experiment. It was
administered to examine the discrepancy between the control and experiment groups’
grammar test success rates among students learning active and passive voice inductively
against those learning deductively.
Quantitative data from questionnaire and test were analyzed using descriptive and
inferential statistics. The responses to the students’ questionnaire were calculated for
frequency and percentages. The ranges of the Frequency and percentages for each level on
a five point rating scale (Likert-type) were used for interpreting the level of agreement.
The results of the grammatical performance test were statistically analyzed by using
Means of both groups test score to compare the performance of both groups. T-test for
independent means was also used to compare the effects of inductive vs. deductive
approach on student performance and t-test for correlated means was used for pre-post
60
comparisons to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between
the means of two matched but independent samples success rates assuming 0.05 a level of
significance.
The results, in terms of the major findings of the study were summarized with regard to the
students' practice towards learning grammar through inductive and deductive approaches.
Analysis of the data revealed that majority 45(75 %) of students’ identified their teacher
started the lesson with presentation of the grammar rules both orally and in writing as
number one always practiced activity in the actual classroom. It was also revealed that
the students already accustomed learning rules first and go for practice. The implication
for the finding directly matches with the students’ very strong preference for the deductive
approach of teaching grammar and the extent of their practice of several activities when
learning grammar in English language classroom at school. A possible reason for this
result could be related with the teachers’ mode of lessons presentations seemed to be more
of deductive dominated which attributed the highest rate of practice after the teacher
explained the rules which is a conventional way to teach grammar in the EFL classroom.
In assessing English language teachers practice towards presenting grammar points,
majority of the teachers favored to follow deductive approach. The finding revealed that
teachers of English gave the priority of teaching grammar to assist learners to internalize
the structures/rules of language. Moreover, in teaching grammar, a teacher explains rules
of the language and tries to make learners understand and memorize them. Rao (2002)
indicated that explicit instruction was usually provided by EFL English teachers who often
taught English grammar deductively. In fact, EFL students have received this explicit,
deductive grammar instruction for years. They have to recall grammar rules so well as to
cope with English written exams at school. Mountone (2004) states that the deductive
methods seem to work best if you want students to be able to quickly and accurately solve
problems like those worked out in class or in the work. Due to the fact that the students
only study English to pass examinations, they are not well-motivated and are deprived of
the opportunities to practice English in real life situations. Moreover, with the constraint
and the exam-oriented lessons, inductive approach to teach grammar is rarely practiced at
schools.
61
The independent sample test revealed that there is statistically insignificant difference with
mean difference of 1.37 at 0.18>.05 between students' grammatical performance test of the
control and experimental groups. This implies that the students in both groups were at
equivalent level of grammatical performance before the treatment. Thus the null hypothesis
is accepted.
The comparison of the pre-test and post-test score results showed an increase in students'
grammar performance in both groups. This implies both the experimental and control
groups did significantly better in the post-tests than the pre-tests.
Regarding the effect of inductive and deductive approaches of teaching grammar lessons
on students’ grammatical performance, the independent sample t-test proved there was
statistically significant differences between both groups grammatical performance at
0.00*<0.05 in favor of the experimental group. The finding indicated that the students who
learned grammars through the inductive approach had much more significant differences
in their active and passive grammatical performance than did the students who were taught
deductively.
Regarding association, the result showed there was a significant correlation between the
students’ grammatical performance before and after the treatment. The value of t-test for
correlated means (t= -20.9 and -14.2), with Sig. level of 0.00* and negative effects for the
two groups were maintained because there was a significant difference between the two
groups. The interaction shows the relative superiority of the inductive group over the
control group with no crossovers between the two groups after the treatments. So the null
hypothesis of there was no significant difference between the mean score of the students
taught by Inductive and deductive in teaching active and passive voice was rejected.
5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations
In view of the overall data analysis and discussion made on the responses obtained from
the questionnaire, structured interview and tests the following major conclusive remarks
were drawn in line with summary of the results presented above:
1. The students had the practice of learning grammar through deductive approaches in the
actual classroom.
62
2. The teachers were aware of the different approaches in presenting grammar points to
high school students and their teaching practice tend to be deductive oriented approach and
inductive approach was given inconsiderable emphasis. Thus it is concluded that the
teaching of grammar has been shaped with deductive orientation.
3.The comparison between students’ pre grammatical performance test was found to be
equal before the treatment, and the independent sample test showed similarity of values
and proved no significant difference at p>0.05.
4. The independent sample test of the students post-test result yielded a significant
difference between the experimental and control groups grammatical performancetest in
favor of the inductive approach at p<.05 and proved the
inductive approach had
significant effect on grammatical performance than the students who were taught with the
deductive approach.
5. The
inductive group improved significantly better than the deductive group in the
grammatical performance test of active and passive learning.
6. The value of t-test for correlated means proved a significant correlation between
deductive and inductive approaches of teaching grammar with students’ grammatical
performance.
7. In sum, learning English grammar through the inductive approach had a positive effect
on students’ grammatical performance in teaching active and passive voice. Hence, it is
concluded that the inductive approach which is given little emphasis significantly affected
students’ grammatical performance and accuracy in language use. The implication for the
result suggested that inductive approach is effective and appropriate teaching approach to
improve students’ use of Active and Passive voices. Inductive instruction promotes
autonomous and meaningful learning (Haight et al., 2007; Wang, 2002).
This study found inductive approach was more effective than deductive approach in
teaching English grammar. Inductive method can create a more meaningful learning
context through self-discovery of rules. Thinking promotes learner autonomy and brings
about deeper learning. Using this approach in the EFL classroom would be an ideal.
63
For the fact that teacher's approaches of teaching grammar play an important role in
classrooms where students should understand what they are taught and how to use it
correctly, the researcher proposes the following recommendations that might help to
improve students grammatical performance.
1. Teachers should use inductive approach of teaching grammar to give better results on
the students' use of Active and Passive voices.
2. The teachers approaches used to teach grammar lessons at school had better be changed
to improve students’ grammatical performance.
3. Teachers of EFL should use both approaches eclectically according to content, goals or
situations .By combining deductive and inductive approaches, it is expected that the
learners will master English grammar rules comprehensively and become an independent
learners.
4. Teachers of EFL should equip themselves with various teaching approaches. In addition,
they also should know about the strengths and the weaknesses of each approach in order to
be able to select an appropriate teaching approach for different situation, and could
anticipate the problems that may be found during the application of the strategy.
5. Educational bureaus and schools should provide English teachers, departments, with
training courses to enhance implementing the inductive approach for teaching grammar in
their classes.
6. Conducting workshops that aim at familiarizing teachers of how to teach grammar using
both the approaches eclectically. And on how they are going to put the inductive approach
into practice specifically in teaching voices to help improve the students’ motivation in
language learning and to improve students’ performance has to be taken as one remedy to
improve teachers’ way of teaching.
7. Teachers of English are recommended to exchange experiences among teachers by
attending each other’s classes especially in grammar to show benefit of using inductive
approach in teaching voices.
64
6.REFERENCES
AbuJeld,R.2004."DevelopmentProjectBasedonTeachingGrammar".Educational
Development Centre, UNRWA, Gaza.
Adam J. 2007.Research Methods for Graduate Business and Social Science Students. Los
Angeles. Retrieved from (URL: hptt// www.sagepublications.com) Accessed on
January 20, 2015.
Amin,
M.E,
2005.
Social
science
research;
Conception,
Methodology
and
Analysis.Makerere University, Kampala.
Andrews, S. 2004. Washback and curriculum innovation. In L. Cheng & Y. Watanabe
(Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 3750).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Atkins et. al 1995. Skill Development methodology .part 1. Addis Ababa University
Best, J. & Kahn, J. 2006..Research in education.Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brown, H. D. 2000. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (2nd ed.). NY: Longman.
Brown,H.D.2007.a.PrinciplesofLanguageLearningandTeaching,(5thed).WhitePlains,NY:
Person Education.
Calaprice, A. 2005. The new quotable Einstein. Jerusalem & USA: Hebrew University of
Jerusalem & Princeton University Press.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1963..Experimental and quasi-experimental design for
research. Hope-well, NJ: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical basis of communicative approaches tosecond
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
CarterR.etal.2000..ExploringGrammarinContext:Upper-Intermediateand
Advanced.
Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Celce-Cullen, R. 2008.Teaching grammar as a liberating force.ELT Journal 62, 221–30.
Chomsky, N.2002.On Nature and Language.Cambridge:University.
65
Cohen, I. B., & Whitman, A. 1999..Isaac Newton: The principia (a translation). Berkeley:
University of California press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. 2007..Research methods in education.NewYork:
Routledge.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues
from field set-tings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Creswell, J. W. 2005. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronbach,J.&RichardJ.2004.MyCurrentThoughtsonCoefficientAlphaand
SuccessorProcedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement.Retrieved on
jan 26, 2015 from: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronbach%27s_alpha"
Crystal, D. 2004. "In Word and Deed".TESTeacher.Retrieved on December 30, 2014 from:
http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/ grammarintro.html
Darling-Hammond, L. 2007. Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of
“No Child Left Behind.” Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
Ellis, R. 1994. A theory of instructed second language acquisition.In N.C. Ellis (Ed.),
Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79-115). London: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. 1997. Second language acquisition research and language teaching.Oxford:Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. 2002. The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language
curriculum. In E. Hinkel& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching
in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40, 83-107.
Ellis, R. 2008.a.Principles of instructed second language acquisition. CAL Digest.
Retrieved from www.cal.org, on February 1st, 2015.
66
Ellis, R. 2008b.The study of second language acquisition, second edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from www.cal.org, on February 1st, 2015.
Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. 2009. Towards a guide for novice researchers on research
methodology: Review and proposed methods. Issues in Informing Science and
Information
Technology,
6,
323-337.
Re-trieved
from
http://iisit.org/Vol6/IISITv6p323-337Ellis663.pdf
Ellis,N.2005."Attheinterface:DynamicinteractionofExplicitandImplicitLanguageKnowledg
e".Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 305-352.
Ellis,R.2004. The
definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language
Learning 54(2),227-275.ELT Journal 46(2), 160-171.
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(2), 242-260.
Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., &Fairman, J. 1998. Performance-based assessment and
instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis,20(2), 95–113.
Fraenkel, J., &Wallen, N. E. 2000. How to design and evaluate research in education (4th
ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
GeremewSemu, 1994.“The Effectiveness of Teaching English as a Foreign Language
through Grammar Consciousness-Raising Activities to Ninth Grade Students”
M.A. Thesis. (Unpublished).Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
GetinetBilew 2010. Assessment of Grammar Presentation With Particular Reference to
Conditional Sentences at Grade Nine: Two Selected High Schools in Wolaita Zone
(Unpublished) M.EdThesis, :Haramaya University.
GirmaGezahegn, 2005. “A Study of Secondary School English Language Teacher’s
Implementation of Methodological Innovations: The Teaching of Grammar in
Focus.” PhD Thesis. (Unpublished).Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
67
Glazerman, S., Levy, D, & Myers, D. 2002..Nonexperimental replications of
socialexperiments: A systematic review. Dallas, TX: Mathematical Policy
Research.
Gollin, J. 1998. Deductive vs. inductive language teaching.ELT Journal, 52(1), 88-89.
Green, J., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. 2006..Handbook of complementary methods
ineducation research.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
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.
HailomBanteyrga, 1982. “English Conditional sentences: A Comparative Analysis of
Structural and Communicative Approach in Teaching to Non-native Speakers.”
(Unpublished) M.A Thesis. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
Harmer, J., 1991.The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Harmer, J.1987. Teaching and Learnining.London:Longman .Heinle&Heinle Publishers.
Harmer, J.2007 How to Teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of English
Language Teaching. Essex, Pearson Education Limited.
Heiman, G. 1999. Research methods in psychology.Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany.
Heinsman, D. &Shadish, W. 1996. Assignment methods in experimentation: When
dononrandomized
experiments
approximate
the
answers
from
randomizedexperiments? Psychological Methods, 1, 2, 154-169.
Herron,C.,&Tomasello,M. 1992. Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction.
French Review, 65, 708-718.
Klein,W. 1986. Second language acquisition.Cambridge University Press.
Kokshetau,A.G.K.2007."Teaching
English
Grammar".Coursework.Retrievedon
December20,2015from:http://revolution.allbest.ru/languages/00020522_
Konda, R., Rajurkar, K. P., Bishu, R. R., Guha, A., & Parson, M. 1999.Design of
experiments to study and optimize process performance.International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 16(1), 56-71.
68
Krashen, S. 1987. Applications of psycholinguistic research to the classroom. In M.Long&
J. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL (pp. 33-44). New Jersey:
Krashen, S. 2002. Second language acquisition and Second language learning (1st Internet
ed). Retrieved January 11,2015 from http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL-Acquisitionand-learning/
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2002.The grammar of choice. In E. Hinkel& S. Fotos (eds.),
Newperspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 103–
18). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2003. Teaching Language From Grammar to Grammaring. Canada:
Heinle
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2009. Teaching and testing grammar. In M. Long and C. Doughty
(Eds.) The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 518-542).
Malden, MA:
Blackwell
Larsen-Freeman. 2009.
“Teaching and Testing Grammar.”
The
Handbook of
LanguageTeaching.Ed.Michael H. Long and Catherine J. Doughty. West
Sussex:Blackwell Publishing, 518-542. Web.
Leedy, P. D., &Ormrod, J. E. 2010..Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B 1991. Complex, performance-based assessment:
Expectations and validation criteria. (CSE Report No. 331). Los Angeles: National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Lipsey, M. & Wilson, D. 1993. The efficacy of psychological, educational, andbehavioral
treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist,48, 12, 11811209.
Litwin, M. S. 2002. How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, publishers.
P.107)
Long, M. H. 2005.Problems in SLA.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69
Mackey, A. and Gass, S. 2005. Second Language Research, Methodology and Design.
MelesseBedane, 1992. “An Evaluation of Grade 9-12 English Curriculum and Its
Implementation in Schools at Capitals of Ethiopian Administarative Regions as
Causes for Students' Deficiency in English.”M.A.Thesis. (unpublished).Addis
Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
Miller, M. D., & Linn, R. L. 2000.Validation of performance-based assessments.Applied
Psychological Measurement, 24(4), 367–378.
Ministry of Education 2013.National Standards for the English Language Teachers (Final).
Addis Ababa, June 2013.
Ministry of Education, 2005. English for Ethiopia grade 11 student’s Book. Addis Ababa.
Mountone, P. 2004. How to Use Examples Effectively: Deductive vs. Inductive
Approaches, University of California, Santa Barbara, Email: [email protected].
Nina P. 2007. Deductive and Inductive Approaches in teaching singular &plural nouns in
English
Norman, B. 2003.Analysis Quantitative Data from Descriptive to Explanation. London:
Sage publication Ltd. Thousand Oaks.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-428.
Nunan, D. 1988. The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching.
Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press. Accessed in
December 2, 2012
Nunan, D. and Lamb, C., 1996.The Self Directed Teacher. Managing the Learning
Process.Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D., 1989. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D., 2003. Practical English Language Teaching, McGraw-Hill, New York,
70
Nunan,F.2004.Teaching ESL students to notice grammar.The internet TESL journal
10(7).Retrieved
November
30,2015
from
http://iteslj/Techniques/Noonan-
Noticing.htaml
Paesani, K. 2005. Literary texts and grammar instruction: Revisiting the inductive
presentation. Foreign Language Annuals, 38(1), 15-23.
Paesani, K. 2005. Literary texts and grammar instruction: Revisiting the inductive
presentation. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 15-23.
Pajunen,N.2007."DeductiveandInductiveApproachesinTeachingSingularandPlural
NounsinEnglish."AProseminarPaper,DepartmentOfLanguages:University
of
Jyväskylä, Finland.
Panko, R. R. 2007. Two experiments in reducing overconfidence in spreadsheet
development. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 19(1), 1-23.
Paradowski, M. B. 2007 .Exploring the L1/L2 interface. A study of Polish advanced EFL
learners. Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw,pdfs/communicativelanguage-teaching-today-v2.pdf
Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., &Mykytyn, P. P. 2004..Impact of heterogeneity and
collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global
virtual teams.Information & Management, 41(3), 303–321.]
Portney L G 2000.Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. Ed.2 Upper
Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Purpura, J. 2006. Issues and challenges in measuring SLA. Paper presesented at
theAmerican Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, June, Montreal.
Rabab’ahG.andAbuSeileekA.2007."TheEffectofComputer Based Grammar Instruction on t
heAcquisitionofVerbTensesinanEFLContext".TheJALT CALL Journal,Vol. 3,No.
1-2, pp. 59-80.
Rao, Z. H. 2002. Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non- communicative
activities in EFL classroom.System, 30, 85-105.
Richards, J. 2006.Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge
71
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C.2002. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.Cambridge:CUP
Rivers, W.M. &Temperley, M.S. 1978.A Practical guide to the teaching of English as a
second or foreign language.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Rutherford,W.andSmith,M.S.(eds).1988. Grammar and Second Language Teaching:A
Book of readings.NewYork:Heinle&Heinle
Séverine P. V.2010.Investigating the Effects of a Guide Inductive and a Deductive
Approach on the Learning of Grammar and Culture in Intermediate-Level College
French.PhD dissertation: Miami University of Ohio, retrieved on Nov.20,2014.
Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. 2002..Experimental and quasi-experimentaldesigns
for generalized causal inference.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shadish, W., Matt, G., Navarro, A., & Phillips, G. 2000. The effects of psychological
therapies under clinically representative conditions: A meta-analysis.Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 4, 512-529.
Slavin, R. 2007. Educational research in an age of accountability. Boston:
PearsonEducation.
Takimoto, M. 2005. Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on Japanese Learners’
Pragmatic Competence.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University
Graduate Board. Japan: Tokyo.
Thornbury S.1999. How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education/Longman
Thornbury, S.2004. How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education Brown,
H.D.University Press. Retrieved from URL: http://www.professorjackrichards.com/
Turner, C. E. 2000. Investigating washback from empirically derived rating scales:
Background and initial steps in a study focusing on ESL speaking at the secondary
72
level in Quebec schools. Paper presented at the 22nd annual Language Testing
Research Colloquium, Vancouver, BC
Wall, D. 2000. The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be
predicted or controlled? System, 28(4), 499-509.
Wang, L. Y. 2002. Effects of Inductive and Deductive Approach on EFL Learning
Collocation Patterns by Using Concordancers. National Yunlin University of
Science and Technology. Taiwan: Yunlin.
Weaver, C. 1996. Teaching Grammar in the Context ofWriting.RetrievedonDec.5,
2015from:http://www.english.vt.edu/~grammar/Grammarforteachers/Readings/We
aver.html
Whitesmoke.2011.Grammar
Exercises.
Retrieved
on
Feb.
5,
2015
from:
http://www.whitesmoke.com/grammar-exercises.
Wikipedia2009.Grammar.Retrieved on Feb.5,2015:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/grammar.
Winter. 1989. A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign
languages. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403
Wondifraw Mihret,2009.A comparative Analysis : the Effect of Product & Process
Approaches of Teaching Writing on the students’ Composing
Proficiency.
Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis.Haramaya University: Ethiopia.
Xia, Z. H. 2005. The effectiveness of different grammar instructions.CELEA Journal
Bimonthly, 28(1), 23-28.
73
7. APPENDICES
Appendix A. Students’ Questionnaire
HARAMAYA
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES
Dear Students,
This questionnaire aims at investigating the effect of approaches of teaching grammar on
students’ grammatical performance. It was designed to see your Preference and Perception
when learning grammar in English language classroom at school. It focuses on assessing
the practice and your attitude towards learning English grammar from the perspective of
teachers’ use of teaching approaches. The researcher assures you that the information
provided will be strictly confidential, and used for purpose of this research only. There is
no need for you to write your name on the questionnaire. Please respond to the following
questions in the most honest way possible.
Where applicable please put a tick (√) mark and write answer where a broken line is
provided.
Please respond to each item. Do not omit any of them.
Yours sincerely,
MisrakWeldegiorgis
PART ONE. Background information
I. Information about yourself
A. Sex: ____________
B. Age: __________Grade___________ section: _________
II: Student’s Practice of learning grammar at school Pleas put a tick (√) mark to indicate the extent yo
practice the following activities When learning grammar in English language classroom using the scale
74
1-5 (5= Always, 4= usually, 3=Sometimes, 2=rarely, 1=Not at all) to indicate.
How do you describe your classroom practice of using the
following activities in learning grammar?
1. I apply grammatical rules given by the teacher to various
sentences given as examples.
2. I practice to apply the grammar rules through the study before
using them in example sentences.
3. I practice with the rules first and produce my own examples at
the end of the lesson.
4. I work to understand grammatical rules from the examples
given by the teacher.
5. I work on sentences as examples before trying to discover
grammar rules by myself.
6. I practice the grammatical rules orally and in writing by
creating my own examples.
7. I apply the grammatical rules with various sentences both orally
and in writing after the teacher explain the rules.
8. My teacher presents grammatical rules orally and in writing
before applying the rule with example sentences.
9. I practice with the rules before producing my own oral and
written sentences as examples.
10. My teacher starts the lesson with presentation of the grammar
rules both orally and in writing.
Rating scale
5 4 3 2
1
75
Appendix B. Teacher’s Interview
HARAMAYA
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES
I. Personal information
1. Would you introduce yourself and tell me about your professional experience?
II. Information on the different Approaches in which English grammar points might be
presented to high school students.
1. In your practice of teaching grammar, how do you present grammatical items to
students?
2. Do you give students example sentences of new language and let them discover
grammatical rule?
3. Do you think giving grammatical explanation is useful? If your response to the above
question is yes, how do you give?
4. Do you give sequences of questions to your students until they accurately understand
grammatical rules and conclude those rules by themselves? Why?
5. Do you make your students practice with the rules and produce their own examples at
the end of the lesson?
6. Do you engage students to discover grammar rules out of the given example
sentences(passage) by themselves?
7. Do you teach grammar starting with examples of sentences, which include the target
grammar that students will learn? Why?
8. Do you present the rule before providing enough practice on using the structure?
9. Do you present the grammar lesson starting from general to specific one? Why?
10. Do you provide students with opportunities to use new language in a free and more
creative way?
11. When you evaluate the students’ grammatical performance, do you think students
perform better in their grammatical ability as per your teaching? Why?
76
Appendix C. TEST
HARAMAYA
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES
English Grammar Test for the Eleventh Grade students.
Name_________________________________ Grade: 11_____________
Number of items: 25
Time allowed: 30
minutes
Part 1.
Direction: For items 1-8, Read the sentences and choose the correct form of the verb
between brackets to complete them. (9 Marks)
1. The buildings (was built- were built – are built) thousands of years ago.
2. The room (has reserved, has been reserved, has been reserving) for you at Sheraton
Addis.
3. The potatoes and onions (is peeled – was peeled – are peeled) for cooking.
4. When I saw the room, it (is swept – was being swept – has been swept) by the janitor.
5. People (will affect, will be affected, will be affecting) by climate change.
6. Great innovations (are made, were made, are being made) in the field of Science and
technology now.
7. Many people (are killed, had been killed, have been killed) in the terrible earth quake
when they worked in the mine.
8. Two teachers (are employed, will have been employed, were being employed) by the
end of June 2015.
9. Girls (can infected, can be infected, can infect)when they raped.
Part 2.
Direction: For items 10-17, read each sentence carefully and correct the underlined verb
forms: (8 Marks)
10. The door has been broken for the third time when I reached my house.
77
11. Many books were borrowed from the library every day.
12. Our economy will affect by climate change.
13. The first writing systemdeveloped around 4000 B.C.
14. The door bell has knocked since last night.
15. Your friend: Who is leading the strike?
You: The strike has been led by University students.
16. By the end of the year, the examination has been taken.
17. Yesterday at this time, Harar is being visited by tourists.
Part 3. Change the following active sentences into passive: (8 Marks)
18. The chairperson postponed the meeting for next week.
19. We borrow books from the library every day.
20. The carpenter is making some chairs.
21. I hope that the government will support us.
22. The president has opened a new hospital in our town.
23. The police had arrested two gun men in the town.
24. The people will have elected the leaders by the 16th of June 2015.
25. Workie was performing the coffee ceremony yesterday at this time
78
Appendix D: Transcription of Teachers Interview
PI: Primary Investigator
P: Participant (T1-T4)
Participant =Teacher 1
Code: T1/ 28/ December/2014
PI: My first question is a general question. Would you introduce yourself and tell me about
your professional experience and qualification?
T1: 6 years experience in teaching English
PI: In your practice of teaching grammar, how do you present grammatical items to
students?
T1: first I employ the easiest and simplest way that practice the students which give them
equal chance to train. I employ familiar words, short sentences with clear examples and
use different strategies, contexts combining with their background knowledge.
PI: 2. Do you give students example sentences of new language and let them discover
grammatical rule?
P: T1: Yes. when I teach new language item, I use different examples which are related to
the topic. In this case, I present different examples which can be understood by the
students without facing difficulty. explain the grammar rule or structure. Then I give
them some clues or examples. Then give chance to practice at the end. But it is difficult
for them to discover grammatical rule by their own.
PI= 3. Do you think giving grammatical explanation is useful? If your response to the
above question is yes, how do you give?
P: T1 YES. giving grammatical explanation is useful way of teaching any content. I give
short explanation and write on the board.
PI: 4 Do you give sequences of questions to your students until they accurately understand
grammatical rules and conclude those rules by themselves? Why?
P: T1 no I don’t.because it is not convenient for me to follow this way of teaching
approach. In classroom, there are different students who needs additional assistance ,but
the time allocated to cover the daily lesson plan isn’t much enough. In addition,
understanding grammatical rules is not a short time activity which students correct this
weakness. And for me it is tiresome activity to do this.
PI: 5.Do you make your students practice with the rules and produce their own examples
at the End of the lesson?
79
P: T1 to some extent this is really what is performed in the classroom to test where my
students are. Even if this ability to have a knowledge is different from individual to
individual, checking students understanding of the topic is important.
PI:6 Do you engage students to discover grammar rules out of the given example
sentences(passage) by themselves?
P: T1: YES,I do. This is actually depending on their prior knowledge. Many students are
not active for this matter only. Some students engage themselves in doing the activity;
most of them do not have awareness to do that. In general it is difficult for them to
discover grammar rules out of the given text or sentences by themselves.
PI: 7 Do you teach grammar starting with examples of sentences, which include the target
grammar that students will learn? Why?
P: T1: YES,I do. But mostly I give examples after giving rule explanation because students
can easily understand.
PI:8 Do you present the rule before providing enough practice on using the structure?
P: T1: YES, I do. At the beginning the rule should be presented. Then it must be supported
by different practices in order to strengthen the ability of the students in such structure.
PI: 9. Do you present the grammar lesson starting from general to specific one? Why?
P: T1: No, I don’t. it is really difficult for the students when we teach any item starting
from general to specific one. The students are confused and dislike to learn finally the
result of teaching in this way hurt the teaching and learning process.
PI:10. Do you provide students with opportunities to use new language in a free and more
creative way?
P: T1: of course yes.
PI: 11.When you evaluate the students’ grammatical performance, do you think students
perform better in their grammatical ability as per your teaching? Why?
P: T1: yes, even if there is a wide gap between the students. There are very slow learners,
at the same time there are medium,and very fast learners. In general,they do better after
learning each grammar lesson.
P: Participant (T2) =Teacher 2
Code: T2/01/ Dec 28 /2015
PI: My first question is a general question. Would you introduce yourself and tell me about
your professional experience and qualification?
T2: 33 years experience in teaching English
80
PI: In your practice of teaching grammar, how do you present grammatical items to
students?
P: T2.I present grammatical items using different sentences and allow the students to
practice as they can or let them practice each other to develop their English grammar
because practice has more sound than theory.
PI: 2. Do you give students example sentences of new language and let them discover
grammatical rule?
P: T2: yes. As I said earlier the students can learn more by practice. In addition to this
giving examples is more preferable way because students can learn more from different
examples. I focus more on practice the rule. But I help them to discover grammatical rule
as they can. Their understanding is not satisfactory.
PI: 3. Do you think giving grammatical explanation is useful? If your response to the
above question is yes, how do you give?
P: T2 YES. giving grammatical explanation is useful. By using practice and let them
communicate or link grammatical rule. I give or write the rule and underline it on the
board.
PI: PI: 4 Do you give sequences of questions to your students until they accurately
understand grammatical rules and conclude those rules by themselves? Why?
P: T2 I have been trying to give different questions but the knowledge of the students is
very less to conclude those rules by themselves because their background do not make
them to be active.
PI: 5.Do you make your students practice with the rules and produce their own examples
at the End of the lesson?
P: T2: Of course I do. But all of the students can’t do this, except 3 or 4 students.
PI: 6 Do you engage students to discover grammar rules out of the given example
sentences(passage) by themselves?
P: T2: YES,I do. But I am not satisfied or
it is somewhat difficult and time taking.
PI: 7 Do you teach grammar starting with examples of sentences, which include the target
grammar that students will learn? Why?
P: T2: I tried, because it helps the students to develop and understand the knowledge of
grammar including to use it in the future.
PI: 8 Do you present the rule before providing enough practice on using the structure?
P: T2: YES, I do.
81
PI: 9 Do you present the grammar lesson starting from general to specific one? Why?
P: T2: NO, I don’t. because I have been starting from specific
to general. This way
makes them, simply to understand the lesson.
PI: 10. Do you provide students with opportunities to use new language in a free and
more creative way?
P: T2: YES, I help and encourage students to have good participation to use their language
freely and more creatively.
PI: 11.When you evaluate the students’ grammatical performance, do you think students
perform better in their grammatical ability as per your teaching? Why?
P: T2: Not satisfactory. because after teaching, I give exercise and they do it, but still they
have difficulties to use the new grammatical structure in writing or speaking.
P: Participant (T3)
Participant =Teacher 3
Code: T3/01/ Dec 29, 2015
PI: My first question is a general question. Would you introduce yourself and tell me about
your professional experience and qualification?
T3 :34 years experience in teaching English
PI: In your practice of teaching grammar, how do you present grammatical items to
students?
T3: first I revise the previous lesson, then after writing the new lesson topic I explain the
grammar points with different examples. I allow the students to practice
PI: 2. Do you give students example sentences of new language and let them discover
grammatical rule?
P: T3: yes. I give examples of new language, but it is difficult for them to discover
grammatical rule by themselves. So I tell/give them grammatical rule.
PI: 3. Do you think giving grammatical explanation is useful? If your response to the
above question is yes, how do you give?
P: T3 YES. This may be useful after giving them grammar in use –in a sentence but
giving grammatical explanation is not useful.
PI: PI: 4 Do you give sequences of questions to your students until they accurately
understand grammatical rules and conclude those rules by themselves? Why?
P: T3 Yes, because asking sequences of questions in class is very important to help
students to understand and identify grammatical rule correctly and to discover the rule by
themselves.
82
PI: 5.Do you make your students practice with the rules and produce their own examples
at the End of the lesson?
T3: Yes, but this is sometimes impossible or difficult for students produce their own
examples
PI: 6 Do you engage students to discover grammar rules out of the given example
sentences(passage) by themselves?
P: T3: YES,I do. But without the help of the teacher they are not interested to discover the
rule and always they expect from me as they see it difficult.
PI: 7 Do you teach grammar starting with examples of sentences, which include the target
grammar that students will learn? Why?
P: T3: YES, because if I give them more examples, they can understand more.
PI: 8 Do you present the rule before providing enough practice on using the structure?
P: T3: NO.
PI: 9 Do you present the grammar lesson starting from general to specific one? Why?
P: T3:NO,As a teacher I have to start from general to specific. First, I give examples and
then to the rule.
PI: 10. Do you provide students with opportunities to use new language in a free and
more creative way?
P: T3: YES. I give them a chance to speak or write on black board, to speak or write freely
using new language item.
PI: 11.When you evaluate the students’ grammatical performance, do you think students
perform better in their grammatical ability as per your teaching? Why?
P: T3: yes, because after my teaching, I ask them different questions or exercises and I get
students when they do better before teaching because I teach them by giving many
examples.
P: Participant (T4) =Teacher 4
Code: T1/01/ Dec 29/ 2015
PI: My first question is a general question. Would you introduce yourself and tell me about
your professional experience and qualification?
T4: 5 years experience in teaching English
PI: In your practice of teaching grammar, how do you present grammatical items to
students?
83
T4:in my teaching of grammar, present
grammatical items
using different context
including real objects.
PI: PI: 2. Do you give students example sentences of new language and let them discover
grammatical rule?
P: T4: NO. while teaching grammar, first I explain the grammar rule or structure. Then I
give them some clues or examples. Then give chance to practice at the end.
PI: 3. Do you think giving grammatical explanation is useful? If your response to the
above question is yes, how do you give?
P: T4 YES. I give grammar explanation orally and write the rule on the board and
underline it.
PI: PI: 4 Do you give sequences of questions to your students until they accurately
understand grammatical rules and conclude those rules by themselves? Why?
P: T4: To some extent, but it isn’t always because it takes time and the student can’t
answer correctly.
PI: 5.Do you make your students practice with the rules and produce their own examples at
the End of the lesson?
P: T4 : sure unless how can I evaluate them
PI: 6 Do you engage students to discover grammar rules out of the given example
sentences(passage) by themselves?
P: T4: YES,I engage students to discover grammar rules, but their participation is less.
PI: 7 Do you teach grammar starting with examples of sentences, which include the target
grammar that students will learn? Why?
P: T4: YES, to clarify the lesson I provide different examples
PI: 8 Do you present the rule before providing enough practice on using the structure?
P: T4: Sure, first I deliver the rule and structure of grammar and I proceed to practice.
PI: 9. Do you present the grammar lesson starting from general to specific one? Why?
P: T4: YES, I start from general to specific because to make the lesson ease for students
to understand the lesson.
PI: 10. Do you provide students with opportunities to use new language in a free and
more creative way?
P: T4 :YES, because to help them to memorize what they learnt I give them the
opportunity.
84
PI: 11.When you evaluate the students’ grammatical performance, do you think students
perform better in their grammatical ability as per your teaching? Why?
P: T4: yes the main purpose of my evaluation is to identify their level of understanding,
and there is improvement after teaching.
Appendix E: Students pre and post grammatical performance test score result
Control Group (n=30)
Studen
t
Pre-test
Code
(25%)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
10
5
19
11
5
10
6
4
9
4
8
8
6
7
9
10
11
19
1
7
4
4
6
5
5
7
5
4
5
5
Source: pre and post test
Experimental Group
Studen
t
Pre-test
Code
(25%)
Posttest(25%)
21
9
23
18
10
17
15
9
12
8
15
16
11
12
13
20
22
22
7
12
9
10
11
10
9
12
9
7
11
10
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
(n=30)
Posttest(25%)
13
3
13
5
10
10
2
7
8
5
10
5
22
13
11
9
5
6
8
12
7
7
10
9
11
9
8
8
7
7
22
10
23
14
21
21
9
19
21
15
18
12
25
23
22
18
13
15
17
21
13
12
22
20
21
19
16
17
12
13