A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Foreign Languages
Author(s): Constance Shaffer
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Winter, 1989), pp. 395-403
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/326874 .
Accessed: 23/01/2012 15:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Blackwell Publishing and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
A ComparisonofInductiveand
Deductive Approachesto Teaching
ForeignLanguages
CONSTANCE SHAFFER
TheHun SchoolofPrinceton
WHEN
PRESENTING
NEW GRAMMATICAL
structures,foreignlanguage teachersoftenoffer
rules firstand then examples (a deductive approach). The problem many students have
applyingthese various rules indicatesthatthey
may not in fact fullyunderstand the concepts
involved. This approach tends to emphasize
grammarat the expense ofmeaning and to promote passive rather than active participation
of the students. The question needs to be
raised, then, regarding the merits of not presenting the rule firstbut allowing the students
to perceive and formulatethe underlyinggoverning patternspresented in meaningfulcontext.
Numerous studies compare and contrast
inductive and deductive approaches.' Unfortunately, none of these studies perceives an
inductive approach as one in which students
consciously focus on the structure being
learned. Rather, an inductive approach was
equated withthe Audio-Lingual Method ofthe
sixties where learning is defined as habit formation. Studentslearned by rotenumerousexamples of a structureuntilthe use ofthatstructure became automatic. They were not consciously aware of what structure they were
learning unless at the end of the lesson the
teacher gave themthe appropriate rule to describe what they had already supposedly
learned. There was general agreement at the
end of the sixties that a method treatinglanguage acquisitionas habit formationwas inadequate. Cognitive psychologistssuch as Piaget
(pp. 170-72) rejected both the limited scope
imposed by behavioral psychologists on the
study of human behavior and the assumption
TheModernLanguage
Journal,73, iv (1989)
0026-7902/89/0004/395
$1.50/0
@1989 TheModernLanguage
Journal
that humans are passive receptacles of rotely
learned knowledge. Accordingto Piaget, while
rote memory has its place in learning, it cannot be equated with comprehension. Viewing
behavioral psychologyas overly simplistic,he
characterizedlearningas a dynamicprocess involving the interactionbetween environment
and the innate structuresof the mind. Information is never passively received, but transformedby learners'dependence on experience
and maturation.
What were the implicationsof cognitivepsychology for education? The reactions among
leading language pedagogues against the
Audio-Lingual Method, althoughall assuming
a cognitiveapproach to learning, took several
forms. Some, such as Krashen (18: pp.
170-71)and Dulay and Burt (8: p. 257), argued
that since language is acquired naturally by
means of an innate cognitiveprocess, teachers
need only supplycomprehensibleinputwithout
explicitly stating or even focusing on rules.
Others, such as Ausubel (2) and Carroll, maintained thatsince adults are endowed witha cognitive network enabling them to understand
abstractconcepts,teachersshould capitalize on
this asset and speed up the language acquisition processby givingthelearnersexplicitrules
in a deductive learning framework.
An alternativeboth to traditionalapproaches
that neglect meaningful conversation and to
natural ones that avoid conscious study of
grammar is an inductive approach. Student
attentionis focused on grammatical structure
used in contextso thatstudentscan consciously
perceive the underlying patterns involved.
Fischer (p. 99) and Hammerly (12: p. 18)
recognize that an inductive approach has a
place in the classroomwherelanguage learning
is treatedas a creative,cognitiveprocess. Both
insist,however, that an inductive approach is
more difficultand should only be used forrela-
396
tively simple grammatical structures. Some
verb inflections,as Stokes (p. 382) points out,
to masterbecause ". . . there
are more difficult
is littlein Englishto help conceptually."Neither
Fischernor Hammerly takes intoconsideration
that,while studentsmay thinktheyunderstand
the rule givento them deductively to explain
these structures,their attempts at usingthem
oftenshow only a superficialunderstandingat
best. The merits of inductivelyexposing students to examples ofwhen and how a structure
is used, so that they can formulatethe underlyinggeneralizationsin termsthattheycan best
understand, needs to be reexamined.
Ausubel (1) and Carroll have asserted that
an inductiveapproach is too difficult
forslower
students, and that only brighterstudents are
capable of discoveringthe underlyingpatterns
of a structure.However, neither Carroll nor
Ausubel supportsthis assumption withany research data, and, while it seems safeto say that
learningstylesdiffer,we have no basis forassociatinghigh intelligencewithinductiveability.
In fact,contraryto Carroll's and Ausubel's predictions, the results of the pilot study of the
present research indicate that weakerstudents
do benefitfrom an inductive approach.
DEFINITIONS
Several aspects of this studydifferfromprevious researchcomparinginductiveand deductive approaches. First, an inductive
approachis
definedas one in which: 1) the students'attention is focused on the structurebeing learned;
and 2) the studentsare required to formulate
forthemselvesand thenverbalize the underlying pattern. Controversy still surrounds the
relationship of verbalization and concept formation.2 However, the Hulstijns' studydid observethatcorrectrule verbalizationcontributes
to correct production.
A deductive
approachin this study is defined
as one where, regardlessof the timingrelative
to the practice part of the lesson, studentsare
givenan explanation.
METHOD
Purposeof Study.The purpose of this study
was to determineif a differenceexists in high
school foreignlanguage students'understanding of grammatical concepts depending on
whetheran inductive or a deductive teaching
approach is used. It explores the advantages of
both approaches forstudentsof all abilitylevels
rather than assuming that an inductive ap-
ConstanceShaffer
forweak ones. Moreover,
proach is too difficult
the structuresstudied are those usually consideredto be difficult
conceptuallybecause they
do not exist in the students'native language.
The followingspecificquestions are addressed:
1) Does the ability of the students(as rated
by the teacher) affecttheir performancewith
either approach?
2) Does the effectof an inductive versus deductive approach varywiththe structurebeing
taught?
3) Does teacher preferencefor eitheran inductive or deductive approach influence student performance?
Sample.High school studentswere chosen for
thisstudyfortwo reasons: 1) They are capable
of generatingand understandingabstract concepts (Inhelder & Piaget, p. 7). Foreign languages are most oftentaught at this level. 2)
This age group is taught by the study's researcherand constitutes,therefore,her primary
area of interest.
In order to have a large sample size, three
differentschools participated in the study. It
was necessary, therefore,to use a number of
teachers whose teaching skillsare unknown to
me. Since their ability to use either approach
would be a seriousvariable influencingthe outcome of the study, it was decided to make the
experimentwritten.Ideally, the assessment of
the relative success of inductive and deductive
approaches would be an oral one. This process
would simulate a normal classroom situation
and allow interactionbetween teacher and student.
Procedure.319 students (152 girls and 167
boys) fromthree high schools participated in
the study. Two of the schools were public
schools withverylow ethnicdiversityand midto upper-middle class incomes; one was a private school with upper-middle to upper class
incomes. The age of the studentsranged from
thirteento eighteen years.
School H had approximately1,400 students
withforeignlanguage class sizes of fromseventeen to twenty-nine students. Two French
teachers with a total of six classes participated
in the study. Three Spanish teachers with a
total ofeightclasses took part. All together216
students from School H were involved.
School M had approximately 600 students
with foreign language class sizes averaging
eighteenstudents.One Frenchteacherand one
Spanish teacher,each withtwo classes, participated in the study. They had a total of fiftythree students in their classes.
Inductive& DeductiveApproachesto Teaching
School P was a private school with approximately 500 students from upper-middle to
upper class families. Although ten percent of
the students come from foreign countries
(mostlyAsian), theydo not usually participate
in the foreignlanguage program. Foreign language classes range fromnine to thirteenstudents. One Spanish and two French teachers
were involved in the study. Each French
teacher had two classes, while the Spanish
teacher had one. All together, fiftystudents
from School P participated.
The Spanish and French teachers in these
schools eithermet personallywith me or were
instructedby theirdepartmenthead regarding
the procedures for the study. They were also
given an instructionsheet,necessarymaterials,
and a briefquestionnaire asking fortheirpersonal preferenceconcerning approach.
The timingof each segmentof the studydepended on when the grammatical point being
taught occurred in that school's curriculum.
The teachers were asked to distributethe research sheetsjust prior to the structure'sregular introductionin class; the grammaticalpoint
being taughtin the study,then,was a new one
for the students.
The teachers were asked 1) to divide their
class into two groups with as even a distribution offoreignlanguage abilityas possible; 2) to
rate each student'sabilityas eitherweak, intermediate, or strong;and, finally,3) to note the
approach used for each student.
Teachers evaluated their students' ability
levels based on overall performance.Students'
school grades were not used for two reasons.
First,some of the researchwas conducted very
early in the school year. Second, grades are
partiallyreflectiveofmotivationand, therefore,
not necessarily indicative of ability.
Tests were also ruled out as a means ofevaluation. A proficiencytest is not feasible forbeginningstudents.In addition,testperformance
could be influencedby the mannerin whichthe
material had been taught. Finally, a language
aptitude test is in itselfbiased toward either a
deductive or inductive presentation.
The inductive presentationconsisted of the
students reading a sheet containing two
columns of about ten carefullyorganized contrastingexamples of a structure(see Appendix
A). For example, one contrastingpair teaching
the imperfectin French was:
Passe Compos6
Imparfait
1)Je suis allk c
1)J'allais toujoursca
Princeton
en 1985.
Princeton.
397
The studentswere then asked to writewhat
theyperceived to be the underlyingpatternor
explanation.
The deductive group was given a paper (see
Appendix B) withthe appropriaterule and the
same examples as those on the inductivesheet
(although not as many, since the purpose here
was to illustrate the given rule, not provide
enough examples that the rule could be inferred).
Both groups were then given an exercise
sheet to assess theircomprehension. In a cloze
test, the students had to decide which tense,
mood, or verb was correct. They did not actually have to conjugate the verb. None of the
instancesused in the examples appeared in the
test so that the studentswere being tested on
their ability to transferwhat they had just
learned to new but parallel situations(see Appendix C).
Teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire indicating which approach they prefer
and in what situationstheyuse one or theother.
They were also asked if theirteacher training
had emphasized eitherapproach. The purpose
of this questionnaire was to determineif their
preference corresponded to the presentation
which led to higher scores on the cloze tests.
Their responses were categorized according to
whether: 1) the teacher used one approach
more frequently;2) his/hertraining stressed
one approach more than the other; 3) eithera)
time, b) structure,c) type of student, or d)
otherfactorsinfluencedselectionof approach.
Structures
Used. Savoir and connaitre(which
representtwo concepts ratherthan the one for
"to know" in English) were used in the beginning level French classes.
The beginninglevel Spanish classes used a)
ser and estar (which represent two concepts
ratherthan the one for"to be" in English); b)
and saber(which parallel Frenchconnaitre
conocer
and savoir).
Both intermediateFrenchand Spanish classes
learned the imperfecttense and the subjunctive mood, which are based on concepts unfamiliar to speakers of English.
All of the materials writtenin Spanish were
read by native Spanish teachersto help ensure
thattheexamples used were grammaticallycorrect, representativeof what would be said by
a native, and well chosen in termsof the concept being taught.
RESULTS
An analysis of variance was used to deter-
Constance
Shaffer
398
mine the relative effectivenessof the two presentations (inductive and deductive) as
measured by the cloze testsgiven immediately
afterwards. Initially, a five-wayanalysis was
done to evaluate the influencenot only of: 1)
presentationon the students'performance,but
also of 2) studentability; 3) teacher; 4) school;
and 5) thegrammaticalstructurebeing learned.
Teachers and schools were the random variables, with teachers being nested in schools.
The other variables were fixed.
The disadvantage of a five-way analysis,
however, is that it spreads the subjects thinly
across the cells and resultsin a weak testof the
major factorsof interest,i.e., approach, structure, and ability. Since the firstanalysis revealed that teachers and schools were not
factors,a second analysiswas carried
significant
out. In thisone, teacherand school were eliminated in order to focus on the main areas of
interest.
Effectof Approachon Score. Table I demonstrates that presentation was not significant.
Table II shows thatthe mean scores forthe two
presentationswere almost the same. This was
the case even though the concepts used were
complex ones not found in English, and the
sample included students of all ability levels.
Table I shows a significant
ofStructure.
Effect
structureand score, indibetween
relationship
cating thatthe structureswere not of equal difficulty(see Table III). Based on the mean score
of each structure,the imperfectwas the most
difficultforstudentsto learn, followedby connaftre
(saber),the subjunctive,and
(conocer)/savoir
ser/estar.
(The factthat the highestmean score
whichwas onlylearned by one
was forestar/ser,
teacher's classes at school M, may also reflect
the fact that this school's scores were slightly
higher in general. Thus, this structureis not
necessarily the easiest of the four.)
Although threeof the grammaticalpoints in
the studywere specificallymentionedby Hammerly (12: p. 18) as being too difficultfor an
inductiveapproach, the studentslearningwith
an inductivepresentationhad a slightlyhigher
mean score for all four structuresthan those
given a deductive presentation(see Table IV).
The differencesin score between presentations are small, but the trendis consistentlyin
favor of the inductive approach. In fact, the
greatestdifferencebetween the mean scoresfor
each presentationis forconnaftre
(conocer)/savoir
(saber), which ranked as one of the hardest
structuresin the study. In otherwords, the in-
I
Analysis of Variance II
TABLE
Source
Structure
DF
F Value
PR F
3
15.64
0.0001**
1
2
Ability
3
Structure/Presentation
6
Structure/Ability
2
Presentation/Ability
Structure/Presentation/Ability 6
Presentation
0.1550
0.2422
0.6027
0.4264
0.5148
0.3894
2.03
1.42
0.62
1.00
0.67
1.06
**Significant at the .01 level.
TABLE II
Mean Scores for Presentations
Presentation
Inductive
Deductive
Number
Score
159
160
7.0503
6.7625
TABLE III
Mean Scoresof Structures
Structure
N
Score
Ser/Estar
33
68
95
123
8.57158
7.5294
6.6421
6.3171
Subjunctive
Conn/Savoir
Imperfect
= Connaitre(Conocer)/Savoir(Saber).
Note. Conn/Savoir
TABLE IV
Mean Scores for Presentation by Structure
Conn/Savoir
Conn/Savoir
Estar/Ser
Estar/Ser
Imperfect
Imperfect
Subjunctive
Subjunctive
Presentation
N
Score
D
I
D
I
D
48
47
15
18
62
61
35
33
6.333
6.9574
8.5333
8.6111
6.2580
6.3770
7.4857
7.5757
I
D
I
= Connaitre(Conocer)/Savoir
Note. Conn/Savoir
(Saber).
ductivepresentationfaredbest when one of the
more difficultstructureswas being learned!
Student
Ability.Teachers were asked to evaluate the abilityofthe studentsin the studybased
on overall class performance. As shown by
Table V, overall, teacher perceptions with
regard to studentability corresponded to how
well these students did in the study.
Inductive& DeductiveApproachesto Teaching
TABLE V
Mean Scoresof AbilityLevels
Ability
N
Score
Strong
Average
Weak
119
134
66
7.3277
6.7313
6.5000
These teacherevaluations were thenused to
determine if either an inductive or deductive
presentation is more appropriate for certain
abilitylevels. According to Ausubel (1: p. 153)
and Carroll (p. 84), only giftedstudents are
capable of constructingthe hypothesesnecessary in an inductiveapproach. The findingsof
the present study,however, reveal that an inductive presentationisjust as well suited as the
deductive approach to all abilitylevels. In fact,
the trend,although minimal, is in favorof the
inductive approach.
When the difference between the mean
scoresofthe two approaches withineach ability
is computed, the weak studentsbenefitedthe
most fromusing an inductivepresentation(see
Table VI). The differencesbetween the mean
scores of the two presentationsfor all ability
levels are small but interestingin light of previous bias against using an inductiveapproach
with weak or even average students.
Summary.Three hundred and nineteen students in French and Spanish classes at three
high schools learned when to use one of four
structures.The structureswere: 1) the imperfecttense in Spanish and French; 2) the subjunctive mood in Spanish and French; 3)
connaitre
(conocer)/savoir
(saber) in Spanish and
in Spanish. These strucFrench; and 4) ser/estar
tures were chosen because they are based on
concepts not found in English and are considered difficultto learn.
One hundred and fifty-ninestudents were
given an inductive presentation of the structures, and one hundred sixty students were
TABLE VI
Mean Scores forPresentation
by Ability
Ability
Weak
Weak
Average
Average
Strong
Strong
Presentation
N
Score
D
I
D
I
D
31
35
77
57
52
6.2903
6.6857
6.6363
6.8596
7.2307
I
67
7.4029
399
given a deductive one. In the inductivepresentation, studentswere given a sheet with contrastingexamples of the structure'susage and
were asked to writewhat theyperceived to be
the underlyingrule. In the deductive presentation,studentswere given a sheetwiththe rule
statedfirst,followedby examples. Both groups
thentook the same cloze testto determinetheir
comprehensionof when to use the structures.
As shown in Table I, no significantdifference was found between the mean scores of
eitherpresentationforany ofthefourstructures
(see Table IV). That studentsdid as well with
the inductive presentationas with the deductive offersstrongevidence against the notion
that an inductiveapproach should not be used
fordifficult
structures.Anotherissue addressed
by the study was whether the inductive approach is too difficultfor weak students. The
teachershad ratedtheirstudentsas eitherweak,
average, or strong. The correlation between
ability and approach was not significant(see
Table VI), which contradictsAusubel (1) and
Carroll's assertion that an inductive approach
is too difficultfor slow students.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this studywas to determine
the relative effectivenessof an inductive presentationand a deductiveone eitherwhen difficult concepts are being learned or when the
students are weak. No significantdifferences
were found between the results using the two
presentations.However, thetrendwas in favor
of an inductive approach for students of all
ability levels learning grammar commonly
considered to be difficult(i.e., grammarbased
on concepts not found in English).
Structure.
Scholars have long maintained that
an inductive approach should not be used for
difficultconcepts.3The findingsof the present
studydo not supportthispoint ofview. On the
contrary,those structureswith overall scores
showing them to be the hardest in the study
benefitedmost from an inductive approach.
A possible reason forpast bias against an inductiveapproach is thatit was generallyviewed
as no more than habit formationrather than
as a cognitive activity. In the present study,
studentswere required to verbalize the underlying rule as part of the inductive learning
process. Rather than rotelyrepeatingexamples
of the structureuntil acquiring unconscious
patterns of behavior, they used the examples
400
provided to hypothesizethe governingpattern.
Their success with this approach corroborates
Bruner'sfindingsthat studentsdo betterwhen
having to discover underlyingpatternsthemselves ratherthan being told them. Even Ausubel (1), despite his preferencefor a deductive
approach for adults, conceded that an inductive approach was valuable forstudentsnot yet
possessing the concepts under which to subsume new ones.
Ability.Another factorbelieved to influence
the effectivenessof the inductive approach is
the abilityofthe students.Both Ausubel (1) and
Carroll have assertedthatweak studentsare not
capable of generatingnew ideas autonomously.
In the present study,however, abilitywas not
a significantfactor.
If enough examples are providedthatclearly
illustratea grammatical point, weak students
who succeed in perceivingand formulatingthe
underlyingconcept themselveswill have done
so in termswhich make sense to them. When
giventhe rule, theyriskonly superficialunderstandingor, worse, may relyon simplymemorizingthe rule withoutany real comprehension.
Limitations.Because of the large number of
teachers who participated in this study, it was
decided to reduce their influence on the students' performanceas much as possible. While
thiscould not be done completely,limitingeach
approach to a writtenpresentationminimized
the teacher factor as much as possible. To
realize the maximum potential of either approach, student-teacherinteractionis needed.
Class discussion is especially helpful in an inductive approach, where students,during the
hypothesis formation process, could benefit
from input from their teachers and peers. If
their perceptions were initiallyincorrect,the
teacher or even their fellow students would
help steerthem in the rightdirection. The fact
that an inductive presentationwhere students
had to formulatetheirideas withouthelp produced such good results atteststo the success
that such an approach would have in a normal
classroom learning situation.
Research.TheRoleofExplicitKnowledge.
Further
In the inductivepresentationin this study,the
studentswere required to verbalize what they
perceived to be the rule before they took the
test. If any studentsneglected to do this, their
tests were eliminated from the study.
While studieshave addressed the issue ofthe
explicitrule knowledge,the importanceofver-
ConstanceShaffer
balization for concept formationstill remains
unresolved.4In Seliger's study(23), the grammatical point testedwas uncomplicated: "The
indefinitearticle was chosen because of the
simplicityof the pedagogical rules which are
normallyemployed to teach it" (p. 361). Furthermore, he was testing adults who had
learned the structurein diverse situations. In
the Hulstijn study,complicatedstructureswere
tested, but, again, the students had already
learned them prior to the study. Therefore,
knowledge of the underlyingconcept had become automatic for many of the subjects. In
Hammerly's study(12), the structurewas conceptually difficultand had been learned togetherby the studentsin class, but he waited
twelve weeks before testing them. As in the
other studies, usage may have become automatic for the studentsby the time they were
tested. The importanceof verbalizing difficult
concepts that have not yet become automatic
responses needs to be studied.
IndividualPreference.
Unfortunately,because
of curriculumdifferencesamong the schools in
the presentstudy,most studentscould participate only once. Therefore,the possibilitythat
certainstudentsdo betterwithone or the other
approach was not explored.
If a longitudinal studywere conducted, the
same students could be exposed to both approaches. One question that needs to be addressed is whethercertainlearningstylescause
individuals to be more receptive to either an
inductive or deductive approach.
Implications
ofResearch.Much recent discussion on language learninghas revolvedaround
whetherexplicitgrammaticalknowledgehas a
central role in today's language classroom.
Most of the research has focused on children
learning English as a second language who are
exposed to the targetlanguage learned outside
the classroom.5
Students learning a foreignlanguage as an
academic subject and who have contact with
that language for four or five class periods a
situation.Language stuweek are in a different
dents should focuson learninggrammarin the
contextof communicativesituations.They cannot, however, be expected to learn a foreign
language as an academic subject in exactlythe
same way as infantslearning theirnative language or even as childrenlearninga second language while in the targetculture. As Ausubel
(2) and Terrell (31) point out, we should capi-
Inductive& DeductiveApproachesto Teaching
talize on adults' capacityto comprehendunderlyingpatterns,and therebyhasten the learning
process.
Because the inductive approach has been
associated with audio-lingual habit formation
theories of the sixties, it has often been neglected in discussions centering on cognitive
learning and explicit rule knowledge. The
present study demonstratesthat an inductive
approach is, indeed, possible in a cognitive
framework,and that it can be as effectiveas
deductive approaches fordifficultgrammatical
structuresregardless of language ability.
NOTES
'See Chastain & Woerdehoff,Hammerly (12), Jenkins,
Politzer, Seliger (23), Sjoberg & Tropez, Smith, Tucker
et al., Von Elek & Oskarsson.
2For furtherinformationon the value of verbalization,
see Carroll, Hammerly (13), Rivers, Seliger.
3See Carroll, Hammerly (12), Fischer. Fischer refersto
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ausubel, David P. The Psychology
ofMeaningfulLearning.
New York: Grune & Stratton, 1963.
2. . "Adults Versus Children in Second-Language
Learning." Modern Language Journal 58 (1974):
420-23.
3. Bruner,Jerome S. "The Act of Discovery." HarvardEducationalReview 31 (1961): 21-32.
4. Carroll, John B. Languageand Thought.Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.
5. Chastain, Kenneth D. & FrankJ. Woerdehoff."A Methodological Study Comparing the Audio-Lingual
Habit Theory and the Cognitive Code-Learning
Theory." ModernLanguageJournal52 (1968): 268-79.
6. Crothers, Edward & Patrick Suppes. Experiments
in Language Learning. New York: Academic, 1967.
7. Dulay, Heidi C. & Marina K. Burt. "Goofing: An Indicator of Children's Second Language Learning
Strategies." LanguageLearning22 (1972): 235-51.
8. . "Should We Teach Children Syntax?" Language
Learning23 (1973): 245-58.
9. . "Natural Sequences in Child Second Language
Acquisition." LanguageLearning24 (1974): 37-53.
. "A New Perspectiveon the Creative Construc10. tion Process in Child Second Language Acquisition."
Language Learning24 (1974): 252-78.
11. Fischer, A. Robert. "The Inductive-Deductive Controversy Revisited." Modern Language Journal 63
(1979): 98-105.
401
This studydoes not proposethatteachersuse
only an inductive approach in the classroom.
Teachers need to be flexibleenough to incorporate various approaches intotheirlessons depending on the particularsituation.An advantage of an inductiveapproach, however, is the
active ratherthan passive participationof the
students. Cognitive research has shown that
discovering ratherthan being told underlying
patternsfavorablyaffectsretention.6Furthermore, in an inductive approach, grammar is
presented in meaningful context.
what he calls the transfertheoryof learning to support the
notion that an inductive approach should only be used to
teach concepts that studentshave already learned in their
native language (p. 100). Hammerly specificallysinglesout
and the imperfecttense as being too difficultfor
ser/estar
an inductive approach.
4Hammerly (13); Seliger (24); Hulstijn & Hulstijn.
5Krashen (17, 18); Dulay & Burt (7-10).
6See Bruner (p. 32) and Sjoberg & Tropez.
12. Hammerly, Hector. "The Deduction/Induction Controversy."ModernLanguageJournal59 (1975): 15-18.
"The Teaching of 'Ser/Estar' by a Cognitive
13. -.
Audiolingual Approach." Hispania 60 (1977):
305-08.
14. Hulstijn, Jan & Wouter Hulstijn. "Grammatical Errors
as a Function of Processing Constants and Explicit
Knowledge." Language Learning34 (1984): 23-43.
15. Inhelder,Barbel & Jean Piaget. TheEarlyGrowth
ofLogic
in theChild. New York: Norton, 1969.
16. Jenkins,Jacinto C. "The Effectsof Explanation with
Spanish PatternDrills." Diss., StanfordUniv., 1969.
17. Krashen, Stephen D. "The Monitor Model forAdult
Second Language Performance."Paper, California
Linguistic Association Annual Meeting, 1976.
18. . "The Input Hypothesis." Current
Issues in Bilingual Education. Ed. James Alatis. Washington:
Georgetown Univ. Roundtable, 1980: 168-80.
19. Piaget, Jean. "Piaget's Theory." TheProcessofChildDevelopment.Ed. Peter Neubauer. New York: New
American Library, 1976: 164-212.
20. Politzer,Robert L. "The Role and Place of the Explanation in the Pattern Drill." IRAL 6 (1968): 315-31.
& Louis Weiss. Improving
21. Achievement
in Foreign
Language. Language and the Teacher: A Series in
Applied Linguistics, 4. Philadelphia: Center for
Curriculum Development, undated.
22. Rivers, Wilga M. The Psychologist
and theForeignLanguage Teacher.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1964.
23. Seliger, Herbert W. "Inductive Method and Deductive Method in Language Teaching: A Re-Exami-
402
nation." IRAL 13 (1975): 1-18.
. "On the Nature and Functioning of Language
Rules in Language Teaching." TESOL Quarterly
13
(1979): 359-70.
25. Sjoberg, Kristina & Barbro Tropez. "The Value of
External Direction and Individual Discovery in
Learning Situations: The Learning of a Grammatical Rule. ScandinavianJournalofEducationalResearch
13 (1969): 233-40.
26. Smith, Philip D. A Comparison
andAudiooftheCognitive
lingualApproachestoForeignLanguageInstruction:The
ConstanceShaffer
24. -
PennsylvaniaForeignLanguage Project.Philadelphia:
Center for Curriculum Development, 1970.
27. Stokes, Jeffery."Effectsof Student Monitoring of Verb
Inflections in Spanish." ModernLanguageJournal69
(1985): 377-83.
28. Terrell, Tracy D. A Natural Approach. ModernLanguageJournal59 (1975): 160-73.
. "A Natural Approach to Second Language Ac29. -
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
quisition and Learning." ModernLanguageJournal61
(1977): 325-36.
. "A Natural Approach to the Teaching of Verb
Forms and Function in Spanish." ForeignLanguage
Annals 13 (1980): 129-35.
. "The Function of Grammar in a Communicative Approach." Paper, Northeast Conference on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages Annual Meeting, April 1988.
Tucker, G. Richard, Wallace E. Lambert & Andre
Rigauld. "Students' Acquisition of French Gender
Distinctions: A Pilot Investigation."IRAL 7 (1969):
51-55.
Von Elek, Tibor & Mats Oskarsson. TeachingForeign
Language Grammarto Adults: A ComparativeStudy.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1973.
Wertz, Christopher A. "An Experiment in Beginning
Language Teaching." Iowa ForeignLanguageBulletin
20 (1977): 9-12.
APPENDIX A
Savoir= To know
= To know
Connaltre
Read the following examples to see how savoirdiffersin meaning from connailtre.
1. Je connaisPaul.
2. Elle connaitson ami.
3. Connais-tuson frere?
4. Nous connaissonscet homme.
5. Je connaisParis.
6. Connais-tule Canada?
7. C'est un &tudiant 'a Princeton University, alors il
connaitbien Princeton.
8. Je connaisl'art de Picasso.
9. Marie connaitla litteraturede Moliere.
10. Connais-tules tragedies de Racine?
1. Je sais son nom.
2. Elle sait qu'il est mon ami et qu'il saitjouer de la guitar.
3. Sais-tu l'age de son frere?
4. Nous savons que cet homme sait nager.
5. Je sais que Paris est en France.
6. Sais-tu que le Canada est grand?
'
7. Il sait qu'il y a une universite Princeton.
8. Je sais que Picasso est peintre.
9. Marie sait que Moliere est un &crivain(writer).
10. Sais-tu que Racine a ecrit (wrote) des tragedies?
How is the meaning of Savoir differentfrom that of Connaltre?Write your answer below.
B
APPENDIX
= To know
Connaftre
Savoir= To know
Savoir indicates a knowledge of fact or of something
learned. When it is followed by an infinitive,it means "to
know how" (to know how to play a sport, etc.).
indicates acquaintance with people, places, and
Connaitre
the work of people (art, literature,etc.). It is always followed
by a direct object.
EXAMPLES:
Je connaisPaul.
Elle connaitParis.
Je ne connaispas l'art de Picasso.
Je sais qu'il parle franrais.
Je sais son nom.
Elle sait jouer au tennis.
Inductive& DeductiveApproachesto Teaching
403
APPENDIX C
Savoir/Connaitre
Fill in the followingblanks witheitherSavoiror Connaitre.
Do not worry about conjugating the verb; just write the
infinitive.
pas ouje veuxallerpour mes vacances.
Je ne (1)
pas. Je (3)
Je prefireallerh uneville queje ne (2)
que Genive est en Suisse. Puisque (since) je (4)
faire du ski, peut-itre
je vais aller en Suisse. (5)
-tus'ily a desstationsdeski(ski resorts)
qui necozltent
un hommequi est trissportif,
pas trischers.Je (6)
il (7)
desstationsde sportd'hiver.Que veuxpeut-itre
bienl'artde Cezanne,et
tufairece weekend?
Je (8)
je (9)
qu'ily a une expositionde son art au musee.
-tusi le mus e estouvert(open) h huitheuresdu
(10)
nouspouvonsaller ensemble
au musie.
soir? Peut-etre
(together)
From the Editor: A Word of Thanks
TRUTH,
ACCURACY,
AND QUALITY
ARE THE
heart of any first-ratescholarly publication.
The extent to which they are present in The
ModernLanguageJournalresults fromthe combined effortsof authors, referees,staffmembers, and the editor. But withoutthe expertadvice of the numerous scholarswho donate their
time and their expertise as a professionalservice, the reliabilityof a publication such as this
one would be constantlyin doubt. The individuals listed below served as fieldconsultants
and refereesat various times during the preparation ofvolume seventy-three
oftheMLJ. In
printingtheirnames here, the editorexpresses
publicly his sincere gratitudeformany hours
of reading and evaluating manuscripts submitted for publication:
Wendy Allen, Diana Archangeli, Victor
Arizpe, Marva Barnett, Simon Belasco,
Diane Birckbichler, Laurel Briscoe, Richard
Brod, H. Douglas Brown, Heidi Byrnes,
Patricia Carrell, Elaine Carter, Aloysius
Chang, Kenneth Chastain, Dorothy Chun,
Mark Clarke, Thomas Cooper, Jerry Cox,
Linda Crawford-Lange, Constance Curtin,
James Davis, Helga Delisle, William DeLorenzo, James Dodge, Robert Doherty, Mary
Donaldson-Evans, Patricia Dunkel, Trisha
Dvorak, J. David Edwards, Madeline Ehr-
man, Gerard Ervin, Stephen Gaies, Alan
Garfinkel, Nina Garrett, Erlinda GonzalesBerry, Frank Grittner, Christine Grosse,
John Gutierrez, Shaw Gynan, Diether H.
Hector Hammerly, Charles
Haenicke,
Hancock, Sandra Harper, James Hendrickson, Kay Herr, Adolf Hieke, Elaine Horwitz, Elizabeth Joiner, Leon Kenman,
Richard Kern, Constance Knop, Claire
Kramsch, Albert J. Kuhn, Joseph Labat,
Robert Lado, John Lalande, Dale Lange,
Diane Larsen-Freeman, James Lee, Francis
Lide, Kari Lokke, Donna Long, Thomas
Lovik, Sally Magnan, Judith Mayne, Sandra
McKay, Shigeru Miyagawa, Anthony Mollica, Suzanne Moore, Judith Muyskens,
Anne Nerenz, Craig Nickisch, James Noblitt,
Howard Nostrand, Martha Nyikos, Terence
Odlin, Solveig Olsen, Rebecca Oxford, Kyle
Perkins, June Phillips, Charles Quinn,
Robert Quinn, Richard Raschio, Eberhard
Reichmann, Charles Richardson, Carmen
Rogers, Ronald Rosbottom, Keiko Samimy,
Marvin Schindler, Renate Schulz, JeanCharles Seigneuret, Larry Selinker, Constance Shaffer, Sandra Silberstein, W. Flint
Smith, Charles Stansfield, Earl Stevick,
Janet Swaffar,Heimy Taylor, Tracy Terrell,
Richard Teschner, Rebecca Valette, Bill
VanPatten, Joel Walz, Gerhard Weiss, Mary
Wildner-Bassett,Joseph Wipf, David Wolfe.