归纳法和演绎法在高中英语语法教学中的用效果对比研究——以强调句型为例 99页

？－．１■－．＇心＇分类号密缴＾ＵＤＣ编号１０７％巧ｊＵｆ莊少攀、幾．嗦硕±学位论文柄纳法和演绎法在高中英语语法教学中的用效果对比研究强调句型为例研究生姓名；郭百学指导教师姓名、职称；＿俞掉教授Ｉ专业名称：＾课程巧教学论研究方向：．英语教学论Ｉ二〇—五年五月 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample归纳法和演绎法在高中英语语法教学中的应用效果对比研究——以强调句型为例GuoBaixue郭百学 郑重声明本人的学位论文是在导师指导下独立撰写并完成的，学位论文没有割窃、抄袭、造假等违反学术道德、学术规范和侵权行为，否则，本人愿意。承担由此而产生的法律责任和法律后果，特此郑重声明学位论文作者（签名）；〇六／＾年６月日／■ 学位论文使用授权书、本论文作者完全了解学校关于保存使用学位论文的管理办法及规定，即学校有权保留并向国家有关部口或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅，接受杜会监督。本人授权西北师范大学可Ｊｌ［＾将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入学校有关》Ｊ数据库和收录到《中国硕±学位论文全文数据库进行信息服务，也可＾采用影印、缩ｔ＾印或扫描等复制手段保存或汇编本学位论文。一本论文提交□当年／□ｉｌ年／，□两年／ＤＨ年ｔｉ后同意发布。若不选填则视为一年Ｗ后同意发布。注：保密学位论文，在解密后适用于本授权书。￣可＇葦｜＞「作者签名：导师签名；＞£？松年６月曰ｆ■ 西北师范大学研究生学位论文作者信息归纳法和演绎法在高中英语语法教学中的应用效果对比研究论文题目——以强调句型为例姓名郭百学学号2012210916专业名称课程与教学论（英语）答辩日期备注： ContentsAbstract..........................................................................................................................................................i摘要...........................................................................................................................................................iiiListofFiguresandTables...........................................................................................................................ivListofAbbreviations....................................................................................................................................ivChapterOneIntroduction............................................................................................................................11.1Backgroundofthestudy.....................................................................................................................11.2Purposesofthestudy...........................................................................................................................41.3Significanceofthestudy.....................................................................................................................5ChapterTwoLiteratureReview..................................................................................................................72.1Reviewoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesabroad...............................72.2Reviewofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarinstructionapproachesathome.............................92.3Definitionsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches...................................122.3.1Deductivegrammarinstructionapproach.................................................................................122.3.2Inductivegrammarinstructionapproach..................................................................................132.3.3Thedeductiveandinductiveinstructionapproachesinthepresentstudy................................14ChapterThreeTheoreticalFoundations...................................................................................................163.1Constructivism..................................................................................................................................163.2Learningbydiscoveryandlearningbyacceptance...........................................................................173.3ZoneofProximalDevelopment........................................................................................................19ChapterFourResearchMethodology.......................................................................................................224.1Researchquestions............................................................................................................................224.2Subjects.............................................................................................................................................234.3Instruments........................................................................................................................................244.3.1Tests..........................................................................................................................................244.3.2Questionnaires..........................................................................................................................274.4Materials............................................................................................................................................294.5Procedures.........................................................................................................................................304.5.1Pre-testandthePre-questionnaires...........................................................................................304.5.2Treatments................................................................................................................................314.5.3Immediate-test,thePost-questionnairesandDelayed-test.......................................................344.6Datacollection..................................................................................................................................34 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussions.......................................................................................................355.1TheresultsanddiscussionsofscoresinPre-testofECandCC.......................................................355.2TheresultsanddiscussionsofscoresinthreetestsofEC.................................................................385.3TheresultsanddiscussionsofscoresinthreetestsofCC................................................................405.4TheresultsanddiscussionsofthecomparisonsofscoresintestsofECandCC.............................425.4.1ComparisonsofscoresinImmediate-testofECandCC.........................................................425.4.2ComparisonsofscoresinDelayed-testofECandCC.............................................................445.4.3ComparisonsofscoresinPre-test,Immediate-testandDelayed-testofECandCC...............455.5TheresultsanddiscussionsofPre-questionnairesofECandCC.....................................................465.6TheresultsanddiscussionsofPost-questionnairesofECandCC...................................................51ChapterSixConclusions............................................................................................................................556.1Majorfindings...................................................................................................................................556.2Implications.......................................................................................................................................556.3Limitations........................................................................................................................................586.4Suggestionsforthefurtherstudy.......................................................................................................58Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................59AppendixI....................................................................................................................................................60AppendixII...................................................................................................................................................63AppendixIII...............................................................................................................................................68AppendixIV................................................................................................................................................70AppendixV..................................................................................................................................................73AppendixVI..............................................................................................................................................76AppendixVIII..........................................................................................................................................78AppendixIX.............................................................................................................................................79AppendixX..............................................................................................................................................80 AbstractForcenturies,grammarandgrammarinstructionhadoccupiedanimportantpositioninthecourseoflanguageteachingandlearning.However,withtheevolutionofpedagogicalandlinguistictheories,therolesofthegrammarandgrammarinstructioninlanguagestudybegantobecontinuouslyquestioned.Somelinguistsstarttogetdoubtfulwhethergrammarshouldbetaught;othersevendirectlyresistteachinggrammar.Itisduetotheinfluencesthat,evenuptillnow,therestillexitsomeuncertaintiesandambiguouscognitionaboutgrammarteachingintheareaoflanguageteaching.Fortunately,yearsoflanguageteachingpracticehasmadenumerouslanguageteachersandresearchesconvincethattheproblemofgrammarteachinginnowadayslanguageeducationhascometothestageofwhatandhowtoteach.Inductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionsaretwobasicapproachesingrammarteaching.Manyresearchersabroadhavedoneagreatnumberofresearchestocomparetheeffectsofthetwoapproachesingrammarteaching,thoughfindingsarevarious,someareevencontradictory.Atthesametime,athome,theconcerningresearcheswhichcanbefoundarenotmuch.So,itisverynecessarytodomoreresearchesontheeffectsofthetwoapproachesingrammarinstruction,inexpectationofdiscoveringanyvaluablefindingstoboostthepracticeofgrammarteachingandlearning.Therefore,thepurposeofthepresentstudyistomakeacomparisonoftheeffectsofinductivegrammarinstructionapproachwithdeductiveone,soastofindoutwhichoneismoreeffectiveinteachinggrammarinshort-termandwhichoneismoreeffectiveinlong-termbycarryingoutexperiment.Inordertoachievetheaims,twoclassesofacertainruralSeniorHighSchoolwerechosenassubjects,andtheEmphaticPatternwasselectedasthetargetgrammaritem.InClassOne(EC),thetargetgrammaritemwastaughtinductivelywhileinClassTwo(CC),thetargetgrammaritemwastaughtdeductively.ThescoreanalysesviaSPSS13.0ofthePre-testindicatethattherearenotsignificantdifferencesbetweenECandCCbothinintegrativeEnglishperformanceandintargetgrammarskills.Afterthetreatments,Immediate-testwasadministratedimmediatelyandtheDelayed-testwasadministratedonemonthlaterinbothclasses,allscoreswerecollectedandanalyzedviaSPSS13.0.Theanalysesofthescoresindicatethat,bothinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachescanimprovestudents’performanceintests,andcomparatively,inductivegrammarinstructionapproachismoreeffectivethandeductiveonebothinshort-termandlong-terminteachinggrammaritem,theEmphaticPattern.Atthesametime,justbeforeandaftertheexperimentaltreatment,onequestionnairewasseparatelyadministratedtoprobeintothedeepthoughtsofthestudentsongrammarteachingandlearning.Theanalysesof theresultsofthePre-questionnairesindicatethattherearenotsignificantdifferencesinstudents’opinionsonthesignificanceofthegrammartotheirEnglishstudy,attitudestothecurrentteachingapproaches,interestsingrammarlearning,thecurrentgrammarteachingmethodsandtheeffectsofthepresentteachingmethodinECandCC;TheanalysesoftheresultsofthePost-questionnairesimplythatmorestudentsshowinterestininductivegrammarinstructionapproachinECthanthatindeductiveoneinCCandthatmorestudentsthinkinductiveapproachiseffectiveinECthanthatdeductiveoneinCC.Allthesefindingsinquestionnairesprovideddeeperinformationandunderlyingevidenceabouttheresultofthecomparisonoftheeffectsofthetwogrammarteachingapproaches.Atlast,basedonthefindingsofthisstudy,someimplicationsforgrammarinstructionsinclassroomaswellassomesuggestionsforfurtherresearchesonthesubjectwerespeciallypresentedintheendofthethesis.Keywords:grammarinstruction;inductiveapproach;deductiveapproach;comparativestudyii 摘要几个世纪以来，语法和语法教学在语言教学中一直占据着重要地位。然而，随着教育学和语言学理论的发展，语法和语法教学在语言学习中的地位不断受到挑战。一些语言学家开始怀疑语法是否该教；另一些则直接反对语法教学。受其影响，即便是时至今日，部分教师对语法及语法教学在语言教学中的地位和作用还存在一些不确定的和模糊的认识。所幸，积年累月的教学实践已使得无数的语言教师和研究者坚信，在如今的语言教学中，语法已经到教什么和如何教的阶段。语法教学中，归纳法和演绎法是两种基本的教学法。在国外，许多研究者已经就对比两种教学法的效果做了大量的实验，然而结果各异，一些甚至相反。同时，在国内，能够发现的相关主题的研究不多。因此，有必要就这一主题进一步研究，以期获得些许有助于推进语法教学实践的有价值的发现。在本实验中，为了求证归纳法与演绎法两种语法教学法，哪一种短期教学效果更好以及哪一种长期教学效果更好，某农村高中高二年级的两个自然教学班被选为被试，强调句型被选为目标语法项目。在一班（实验班）采用归纳法进行语法教学，而在二班（控制班）则采用演绎法进行语法教学。通过社会科学统计软件包SPSS13.0对两班前测成绩对比分析，所得结果表明：两班无论在综合英语能力还是目标语法项目技能方面均无显著性差异。实验教学完成之后，立即进行了及时测试，一个月之后又进行了延时测试。所有数据被收集完成后，同样通过SPSS13.0对测试成绩进行了对比分析，结果表明：两种语法教学法都能有效地提高学生的测试成绩，促进学生的语法学习；对比而言，无论是长期还是短期效果，演绎法均优于归纳法。同时，就在实验课进行之前和之后，分别有前问卷和后问卷被安排来调查学生对语法教学的深层看法。前问卷结果分析表明，实验班和控制班学生对语法学习对他（她）们英语学习的重要性的看法，对当前所采用的语法教学法的态度，对语法学习和教学的兴趣以及对当前语法教学效果的看法都没有显著性差异；后问卷结果分析表明，实验班对归纳法语法教学法感兴趣的学生人数多于控制班对演绎法教学法感兴趣的人数；实验班认为归纳法语法教学法有效的人数同样多于控制班认为演绎式语法教学法有效的人数。两次问卷结果的分析提示了一些对两种教学法教学效果对比结果的深层认识和潜在证据。最后,文章特别呈现了基于本研究的一些英语课堂语法教学启示和就本论题的未来研究的建议。关键词：语法教学；归纳法；演绎法；对比研究 ListofFiguresandTablesFigure2.1Theinductive-deductiveparadigm..............................................................................................15Table4.1TheInvestigationonGrmmmarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchool...........................28Table4.2TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchoolforEC................29Table4.3TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchoolforCC.................29Table5.1GroupStatisticsoftheMid-termtest............................................................................................36Table5.2IndependentSamplesTestoftheMid-termtest............................................................................36Table5.3IndependentSamplesTestofthePre-test......................................................................................37Table5.4IndependentSamplesTestofthePre-test......................................................................................37Table5.5PairedSamplesStatisticsofEC....................................................................................................38Table5.6PairedSamplesCorrelationsofEC...............................................................................................39Table5.7PairedSamplesTestofEC............................................................................................................39Table5.8PairedSamplesStatisticsofCC....................................................................................................41Table5.9PairedSamplesCorrelationsofCC...............................................................................................41Table5.10PairedSamplesTestofCC..........................................................................................................41Table5.11GroupStatisticsoftheImmediate-test........................................................................................43Table5.12IndependentSamplesTestoftheImmediate-test........................................................................43Table5.13GroupStatisticsoftheDelayed-test............................................................................................44Table5.14IndependentSamplesTestoftheDelayed-test............................................................................45table5.15theresultsofcomparisonsoftestsofECandCC........................................................................46Table5.16TheResultsofthePre-questionnairesinECandCC..................................................................47Table5.17GroupStatisticsofPre-questionnairesofECandCC.................................................................49Table5.18IndependentSamplesTestofPre-questionnairesofECandCC.................................................50Table5.19TheResultsofthePost-questionnairesinECandCC................................................................52iv ListofAbbreviationsCLT：CommunicativelanguageTeachingGMT：Grammar-translationMethodFLT：ForeignLanguageTeachingFLL：ForeignLanguageLearningSLA：SecondLanguageAcquisitionEC：ExperimentalClassCC：ControlClassZDP:ZoneofProximalDevelopmentNMET:NationalMatriculationEnglishTest ChapterOneIntroductionChapterOneIntroduction1.1BackgroundofthestudyForcenturies,grammarandgrammarinstructionhadoccupiedanimportantpositioninthecourseoflanguageteachingandlearning,specially,intheages,whentheGTM(Grammar-translationMethod)wasdominantinthefieldoftheFLT(ForeignLanguageTeaching).Inthetime,inordertoachievetheaccuracyofreadingandwriting,justlikewhatSuDingfangandZhuangzhixiang(1996)hadstatedthat,grammaristhecenteroflanguagelearning.Thatis,FLL（ForeignLanguageLearning）meanslearningandmemorizinggrammarrulesandstrengtheningthememorizationthroughagreatmanyofexercises.However,withtheevolutionoftheobjectivesforpeopletolearnforeignlanguagesandthedrawbacksofGTMbeingincreasinglyexposed,GTMbegantobeconstantlychallengedbyvarietiesofnewlanguageteachingmethods,approachesandtheories,soweretheroleofthegrammarandgrammarinstructioninlanguagestudy.Firstofall,towardthemid-nineteenthcentury,peoplegraduallygrewtohaveever-growingopportunitiestocommunicatewitheachotherandever-increasingdemandsfororalproficiencyinforeignlanguages,anditcontributestoaquestioningandrejectionoftheGTM(Richards,J.C&Rodgers,T,2000).Inthiscase,somelanguageteachingspecialistsbegantoseekalternativemethodsoflanguagestudy.Asaresult,anewmethodnamedtheDirectMethodwasputforward.Accordingtotheprinciplesofthenewmethod,wecaneasilyfindthattheroleofgrammarandgrammarinstructionhavebeenobviouslyimpairedforthefirsttimecomparedtotheminGTM.Firstly,intheDirectMethod,theobjectivesoflanguagelearninghavetransformedfromreadingcomprehensionorliteracyappreciation,translationandwritingtospeakingproficiencyorcommunicationskills.Thus,thecenteroflanguagelearninghastocorrespondinglyconvertfromlearning,memorizingandapplyinggrammarrulestoobtainingspeakingskillsororalproficiency.Secondly,theDirectMethoddemandsthatteachersusetargetlanguagetoteachtargetlanguage,advocatingdirectlearning,directunderstandinganddirectapplication(LuoZhongming&HeGaoda,2011).Therefore,theroleoftranslationinlanguagelearninghasbecomelessnecessaryintheDirectMethod,accordingly,grammarasanintermediumtoachievebettertranslationbetweennativeandtargetlanguageandappreciationofliteraturehasbecomelessnecessaryaswell.Thirdly,intheDirectMethod,grammarrulesarenotemphasizedatthebeginningoflanguagelearning,whileimitatingexercises,memorizationandrecitationaretheprimarywayofmasteringalanguagesoastoformautomatichabit1 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample(LuoZhongming&HeGaoda,2011).Thegrammarrulesshouldbetaughtonlyafterthestudentshavepracticedthegrammarpointsincontext,thatistosay,grammarshouldbetaughtinductively(Richards,J.C&Rodgers,T,2000).Inconclusion,intheDirectMethod,thesituationofgrammarandgrammarinstructioncenteredinlanguageteachingandlearninghasbeencompletelybrokendown,andmanyrestrictionshavebeenimposedonthegrammarinstructioninthemethod.Secondly,amongotherinfluentialteachingmethodsorapproaches,CommunicativeLanguageTeaching(CLT)whichJackC.Richards(2006)statedthat,sinceitsinceptioninthe1970s,CLThasservedasamajorsourceofinfluenceonlanguageteachingpracticearoundtheworld,isanotherapproach,whichhascausedgreateffectonthegrammarinstructioninlanguagelearningandteaching.Tobeginwith,thecoreofCLTistocultivatelearners’communicativecompetence.However,evensofarlinguisticsandlanguageresearchershavenotreachedanagreementon“whatiscommunicativecompetence?”thoughtherehavebeenmanyversionsofcommunicativecompetence.Atthesametime,somespecialistsprefertoseeCLTasanapproachratherthanamethod,thatis,theyinsistthatitismoreappropriatetouseCommunicativeApproachinsteadoftheCommunicativeLanguageTeaching.Asweallknow,comparedwithmethod,approachismoreabstractandtheoretical.Thiswould,ofcourse,leadtolackoffeasiblecriterionorprinciplesforlanguageteachertorefertointheclassroomontheonehand.Ontheotherhand,owingtoalltheseinconsistence,ambiguityanduncertainty,itisinevitablethatvariousversionsofinterpretationandpracticeappeared,somemisunderstandingsandmisconceptionscameoutaswell.GeoffThompson(1996)hadpointedoutfourmisconceptionsoftheCLT:a:CLTmeansnotteachinggrammar;b:CLTmeansteachingonlyspeaking;c:CLTmeanspairwork,whichmeansroleplay;d:CLTmeansexpectingtoomuchfromtheteacher.NinaSpada(2007)hadsummarizedfivemisconceptionsofCLTasfollows:1.CLTmeansanexclusivefocusonmeaning2.CLTmeansnoexplicitfeedbackonlearnererror3.CLTmeanslearner-centeredteaching4.CLTmeanslisteningandspeakingpractice5.CLTmeansavoidanceofthelearners’L1Tosumup,inCLTorCommunicativeApproach,itisafactthatmeaningisinthefirstplace,andcommunicativecompetenceisthemostemphasizedconcern.Thusgrammarandgrammarinstructionhas2 ChapterOneIntroductionbeenignoredoratleastmarginalizedforalongtimewhenCLTispopularinlanguageteachingandlearningarea.Asamatteroffact,atonetime,manylanguageeducatorshaveputCLTinthepositionofoppositetogrammarteaching.TheythinkthatitwillnotbetherealCLTifanyattentionwaspaidtothelanguagestructuresinlanguageteachingclassroom,sothatgrammarteachingintheCLTclassroomseemedtohavebecomeakindoftaboo.LanguagespecialistsSuDingfangandZhuangzhixiang(1996)hadstatedthesameviewpointofgrammarteachinginCLT.TheyputitthatCLTmakesthecultivationofcommunicativecompetencethemainaimofFLT,emphasizingmeaningbutdecreasingthedemandsforthedegreeoftheaccuracyoflanguagestructure.Grammarinstructionissubmittedtocommunicativeteaching,andthearrangementofgrammaritemismademostlydrawingonthescheduleofthecommunicativeteaching,whichmakesgrammarinstructionitselflesssystematicandlackcharacteristicsofstage.Inthissituation,thestatusofgrammarisgreatlyimpairedandsomegrammaritemsareevencompletelyignored.Thirdly,somelinguistsandlanguageresearcherslikeCorder(1967)suggestedthatlearnershadtheirownbuilt-insyllabusforlearninggrammar.Inlinewiththis,Krashen(1981)arguedthatgrammarinstructionplayednoroleinacquisition,aviewbasedontheconvictionthatlearners(includingclassroomlearners)wouldautomaticallyproceedalongtheirbuilt-insyllabusaslongastheyhadaccesstocomprehensibleinputandweresufficientlymotivated.Grammarinstructioncouldcontributetolearningbutthiswasoflimitedvaluebecausecommunicativeabilitywasdependentonacquisition.OtherresearcherslikePrabhu(1987)(CitedRodEillis(2010)p265)hastriedtoshow,withsomesuccess,thatclassroomlearnerscanacquireanL2grammarnaturalisticallybyparticipatinginmeaning-focusedtask.Theseargumentsandassumptionshavehadalsogreatlyinfluencedsomelinguistsandlanguageeducatorsinrecentdecades.Consequently,thelate1970sand1980switnessedarejectionofgrammarinstructiononthegroundsofthejustificationprovidedbyKrashenthatlanguageisacquiredimplicitlyduetoadequateexposuretothetargetlanguage(VanPattenandWilliams,2007).Undoubtedly,thesetheoriesorthoughtshavealsoweakenedtheimportanceofgrammarandgrammarinstructionintheforeignlanguageteachingandlearningclassroom.However,inyearsofpracticeofCLT,somelanguageresearchersandeducatorsfoundthat,thepracticaleffectoftheCLTisnotsohighefficiencyassomelinguists,languageresearchersandlanguageteachershaveexpected.Worsestill,duetolayingtoomuchstressonmeaningtoimprovethelearners’communicativecompetence,whichisusuallymistreatedasspeakingabilityororalproficiency,but3 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleignoringorevenavoidinggrammarinstructioninclass,learners’comprehensivecompetenceandwritingabilityaretosomeextentdegradedultimately,whichhasfurthermadenegativeeffectonthelearners’languagedevelopmenttothehigherlevel.Underthecircumstance,somelinguistsandresearcherscommencetogivesupporttogrammarinstruction.Forexample,CanaleandSwain(1980)clearlyillustratesthesignificanceofgrammar,inhismodel,grammarisviewedasonecomponentofcommunicativecompetence.RonSheen(2002)claimedthat,withoutgrammar,learnerscancommunicateeffectivelyonlyinalimitednumberofsituations.Oneofthecurrentconcernsofappliedlinguistsiscenteredonthemosteffectiveformofgrammarinstructioninthecommunicativeclassroom(DoughtyandWilliams1998;Lightbown2000;NorrisandOrtega2000).Inaddition,Hannan(1989),Lewis(1986)andGarner(1989)stronglysupporttheteachingofgrammar.RodEllis(2010)haddrawnaconclusioninhisarticlethatgrammarhasheldandcontinuestoholeacentralplaceinlanguageteaching.The‘zerogrammarapproach’wasflirtedwithbutneverreallytookholdasisevidentinboththecurrenttextbookmaterialsemanatingfrompublishinghouses(e.g.Whitney&White,2001)andincurrenttheoriesofL2acquisition.Thereisampleevidencetodemonstratethatteachinggrammarworksandisofgreatsignificance.Someotherlinguistsandlanguageresearchershaveputforwardtheirviewpointsdrawingonthetheoriesofthelinguistics,whichalsosupportthenecessityoftheemphasisongrammarandgrammarinstruction.So,allinall,theoriesandpracticebothimplicatethattheproblemofthegrammarandgrammarinstructionshouldbetheproblemofgrammarinnowadayslanguageeducationhascometothestageofwhatandhowtoteach.1.2PurposesofthestudyAsisdiscussedabove,afteraperiodoffluctuation,grammarandgrammarinstructioninlanguagestudyhaveagainobtainedtheirindispensiblerolesinthecourseoflanguagestudy.Bothlanguageresearchersandteachershaverealizedthatitiswrongtoignoreormarginalizegrammarandgrammarinstruction.Therefore,forthetimebeing,thequestionofthegrammarandgrammarinstructionhaveconvertedtowhatshouldbetaughtandhowshouldbetaught.Underthecircumstance,thepresentstudyistoprobeintothesecondproblem“Howshouldgrammarbetaught?”Tobespecific,theobjectiveofthestudyistomakeacomparisonofinductiveanddeductivegrammarteachingapproachestofindoutwhichoneismoreeffectiveinteachingseniorhighschoolstudents’grammarcomparedwiththeother.4 ChapterOneIntroductionInordertofindoutreliableresults,aquasiexperimentwillbecarriedoutbyteachingthetargetgrammaritem―theEmphaticPatternintwodifferentclassesrespectivelywiththeinductiveanddeductivegrammarteachingapproaches.Inthemeantime,threetestsaswellastwoquestionnairesareadministratedtogetsomedatainformationandsomedeepgroundinformation.Tobemorespecific,thefollowingtwoquestionsareexpectedtobeansweredinthestudy.Firstly,inductiveanddeductivegrammarteachingapproaches,whichoneismoreeffectiveinteachingthetargetgrammaritem―theEmphaticPatterntoseniorhighschoolstudentsinshort-term?Secondly,inductiveanddeductivegrammarteachingapproaches,whichoneismoreeffectiveinteachingthetargetgrammaritem―theEmphaticPatterntoseniorhighschoolstudentsinlong-term?1.3SignificanceofthestudyGrammar,asanessentialcomponentoflanguage,hasplayedandwillcontinuouslyplayavitalroleinbothSLA(SecondLanguageAcquisition)andFLT.FaizahMohamad(1997)statedgrammarstudyhasplayedanimportantroleinlanguageteachingandlearningastherearestillpossibilitiesandmeritsofgrammarteachinginlanguageclassrooms.ZarvaTeodorandDoinaVeneraMunteanu（2013）emphasizedthatneedlesstosaythat,learningaforeignlanguageimpliestheacquisitionoftherespectivegrammar.Withinaprogrammeorofaforeignlanguagecourse,itisnecessarytosetthemodalitiesofdevelopingthedidacticactivity:theplace,therole,theimportanceofgrammarintheteaching/learningactivity.Therefore,grammarteachingisstillofgreatimportancetolanguagelearnersandteachers.However,asismentionedabove,inrecentdecades,grammarandgrammarteachinghadoncebeenresistedormarginalizedintheCLTclassrooms.Thereareagreatnumberofreasonsforit.Fortunately,forthetimebeing,theimportanceandnecessityofgrammarinstructionhaveonceagaindrawnlanguageresearchers’andeducators’attention,andstudiesonhowtoteachgrammareffectivelyhavebecomeahottopicamongresearchersandteachers.DeductiveandinductivegrammarteachingsarebasicapproachesforlanguageteacherstohandletheproblemsofthegrammarintheEFLandESLclassroom.Inthelonghistoryofgrammartranslatedmethodages(GMT),deductivegrammarinstructionhasbeenthedominantapproachingrammarlearningandteaching,evenuptodate,itisstillthemajorapproachformostoflanguageteachingduetoitsadvantages.However,inrecentdecades,withtheeducationandcurriculumreformsgoingdeeper,studentsorlearner-centerededucationprinciplesbegantobepopularandacceptedbymoreandmoreresearchersandlanguageteachers.Inductivegrammarinstruction,duetoitsemphasisonthelearners’learningautonomy5 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleandlearningbydiscovering,whichcateredtothenewtrends,begantobepromotedinthelanguageteachingandlearningclassroom.However,thepursuitofbestapproachandmakingthebestchoicearealwaysthenatureofhumanbeings，sowhichoneismoreeffectiveingrammarinstructionhasbecomeaprettypracticalprobleminfrontofthelanguageteachingandlearningresearchersandthelanguageteachers.Meanwhile,plentyofexperimentshavebeenconductedinrecentyearstoprobeintotheeffectivenessoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches,yetthereisnotanyhighly-consistentconclusionhadbeenmade,thatis,therearestillproblemsorquestionsaboutthestudy,which,ofcourse,wouldmakeitnecessaryforustomakefurtherstudy.Itishopedthatthepresentstudywilldiscoverwhichoneofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarteachinginstructionapproachesismoreeffectiveforseniorschoolstudentstoimprovetheirgrammarskills,performanceorabilitiessothatteacherscouldworkmoreeffectivelyintheirgrammarteaching.6 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewChapterTwoLiteratureReviewGrammarandgrammarinstructionareessentialcontentsoflanguageteachingandlearning,andresearchesonthetwosubjectsarefruitful.Researchesonthecomparisonoftheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesabroadareplentifulinthehistoryofthegrammarstudyandforthetimebeing,theyarestillhottopicsinlanguageteachingandlearningfields.However,athome,researchesontheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionscanbefoundarenotmuch,especiallytheresearchesinvolvingthecomparisonoftheeffectsofthetwogrammarinstructionapproaches.2.1Reviewoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesabroad.Grammar,asoneofthemostimportantelementsoflanguage,hasdrawnlinguists’attentioninveryearlyages.Sowenowhavemanygreatgrammarians,well-knowngrammartheoriesandmasterpiecesthereforus.Nowadays,withthedevelopmentofthescienceandtechnology,manyscientificfieldsarebecomingincreasinglydeepandfine,soareresearchesongrammar.Thus,researchesoncomparisonsoftheinductiveanddeductiveinstructionapproachesareinabundance.RosemaryErlam(2003)hadasummaryofthesixstudieswhichhadmadecomparisonsoftheeffectivenessoftheinductiveanddeductiveinstructions,andtheyareseparatelyAbraham(1985),Herron&Tomasello(1992),Ro-binson(1996),Rosa&O’Neill(1999),Seliger(1975)andShaffer(1989).Somestudies(Robinson,1996;Rosa&O’Neill,1999)usedthetermsinstructedandrulesearchinsteadofdeductive/inductive.Hesummarizedthesiximportantstudiesonthetopicandhadconclusionsasfollows:Firstofall,theconclusionsarevariousorevenconflictwitheachother;Secondly,someresearchersfoundthatthereisnosignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwoapproaches;Thirdly,measurementsusedintheirstudiesaremainlyoral,writtenorreadinglanguageproduction;Atlast,moststudiesinvolvemorethanonestructureandparticipantsarealmostalladults.Recentyears’studiesontheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches，havecometodegreeofgreatdepthandwidth,thoughtheresultsandfindingsarestillvarious.Somestudies(SiminChalipa(2013),NorikoNagata(1997),AmandaJ.Owen(2009),RosemaryErlam(2003)findthatdeductivegrammarinstructionissignificantlymoreeffectivethaninductiveones;somestudies(CarrieE.Haight,CarolHerron,StevenP.Cole(2007),FaizaMohamad(1997),G.Jean,D.Simard(2013),YukiMaehara(2008),Jia-YuanShih(2008),HelenMotha（2013）)findinductivegrammarinstructionissignificantlymoreeffectivethandeductiveones;someotherstudiessuggestthatinductiveanddeductive7 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplegrammarinstructionareequallyeffective,ortheyhavenosignificantdifferences;stillsomeotherresearchersMasahiroTakimoto(2008);Se´verine,VogelCarol,HerronSteven,P.ColeHollyYork(2011),otherwise,haveotherfindingsintheirstudies:Analysesindicatedthatstudentswhopreferredexplanationsoftherules(deductiveapproach)performedbetterwithaguidedinductiveapproach(Se´verine,VogelCarol,HerronSteven,P.ColeHollyYork,2011).Inductiveinstructioniseffectivewhencombinedwithproblem-solvingtasksorstructuredinputtasksforwhichtheemphasisisonpragmatic-linguisticandsocio-pragmaticresources(MasahiroTakimoto,2008).Someresearchers(SiminChalipa,2013;Se´verineVogel，CarolHerron，StevenP.Cole，HollyYork,2011)havestudiedtheshort-termandlong-termeffectsofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarinstructions.TheybothsupportthatdeductiveapproachismoreeffectiveforEFLlearners’onshort-termlearningofgrammaticalstructuresanddeductiveandguidedinductiveapproachesaresimilarforEFLlearners’onlong-termlearningofgrammaticalstructures.NorikoNagata(1997)usedthedifferentterms“rule-drivendeductive”and“Example-driveninductive”approachestohavestudiedtheongoingrule-drivendeductivefeedbackandExample-driveninductivefeedbackandfindstheformerismoreeffectiveforlearningrelativelycomplexstructureswhosegrammaticalrulesarenotsalientinlightofexamplesthanthelatter,whoistheonlyonehadmentionedtherelationsbetweenthecomplexityofthetargetgrammaritemsandeffectsofthetwoapproaches.Inaddition,inrecentyears,researchershavemadegreatcontributionstothestudiesofeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructions,andtheyhavemadethestudyonthesubjectgodeeperandwiderinmanyaspects.Tobespecific,moreexperimentshavebeendonetoinvestigatetheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesbymoreresearchersfromvariouscounties,mostofwhichhaveadministratedPre-test,Immediate-testaswellasDelayed-test,togetherwithquestionnaires,evenincludinginterviews.Moreandmoregrammaticalitemsandstructuresareusedasthetargetgrammaticalitemsintheexperiment;meanwhile,morevarioussubjectsfromdifferentagesandlanguageproficiencylevelsarechosentoparticipateinthestudy.Atthesametime,targetlanguageisnotonlyoneorEnglish,buthasbeenextendedintomanyotherforeignlanguagesasthefirst,secondorforeignlanguagesinthelanguageteachingclassroomoftheexperiment.Itisnaturalthatmoreconclusionshavebeenmadeandmorefindingshavebeenfound,whichhavenotonlymadethetheoriesofthestudyricher,butalsoprovidedmuchmoreimplicationstogrammarlearningandteaching.8 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewTosumup,oninductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches,theresearchesofboththeoriesandpracticehavebeenfruitfulandfindingsarevarious,someofwhichareconsistentwitheachother,andsomeothersareevencontradictorywitheachother.2.2Reviewofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarinstructionapproachesathome.Accordingtothediscussionsabove,thestudiesofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarinstructionshavecometoagreatdepthandwidthabroadforthetimebeing.Especially,moreexperimentalstudieshavebeenconductedbydifferentresearchersfromvariouscountries（regions）,withmorediverseparticipantsandmaterials.Inthemeantime,thesefindingsintheexperiment,ontheonehand,haveenrichedthetheoryofthegrammarinstruction;ontheotherhand,haveprovideduswithmorefruitfulreferenceswhileteachingandlearninggrammarinthepractice.However,thestudyonthesametopicathomeisabitlaterandmuchlesscomparedwiththeresearchabroad.Recentdecades,thestudyofgrammarinstructionathomemainlyfocusesontheintroductiontotheforeignadvancedgrammarinstructionaltheoriesandtheapproaches.HuangHebinandDaiXiuhua(1999)reviewedandcommentedthegrammarteachingsincenineteeneightiethcenturyandmainlyanalyzedadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthecontentsandmethodsingrammarteaching.HaoXingyue(2004)inhispaperdwelleduponthelinguistictheoriesofbothimplicitandexplicitgrammarinstructioninanattempttoexplorethetrendforthedevelopmentofgrammarinstructioninTEFL.DaiWeidongandChenLiping(2005)restatedtheimportanceandnecessityofgrammarinstructiontolanguagelearning,andpointedoutthatgrammarinstructioncanquickenthemasteryofthelanguageforms,thoughitcannotchangetheorderoflanguageacquisition.Meanwhile,theystatedthat,theconceptofthegrammarhasenlarged,itisnotlimitedtothefixingforms,butischanging,extendingtodiscourseconcernedanditistheorganicintegrityofmeaningandforms.Theyencourageteacherstotreatandteachgrammarfromthenewlyrespectiveandmethods.ChenXiaotang(2013)insiststhatthemeaningandformsofalanguageareintegrated,andgrammarlearningisnotonlyforthepurposeofthecorrectionoflanguageuse,grammaristhesourceofexpressingmeaning.Andthekeypointofgrammarinstructionisitsfunctionofconveyingmeaning,butnotitssurfaceforms.QuanRenheng(2007)reviewedtherecenttwentyyears’researchesconcerningtheroleofgrammarinstructioninforeignlanguagelearninginthehopeofprovidingsomevaluablesuggestionsforFLTandFLLinChina.Ofcourse,thestudyontheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproacheshas9 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampledrawnsomeresearchers’attention.Someresearchersathomehaveconvertedtotheprobeintotheeffectsofthegrammarinstructionapproaches.DaiWeidongandRenQingmei(2006)suggestthattheoreticallyandpractically,tomultiplytheexplicitinputandimprovelearner’sconsciousnesstogrammaticalformswithnegativefeedbackcontributetotheirbetterunderstandingandlanguageoutputbyhelpingthemobtaininductiveknowledge.Asaresult,explicitconsciousness-raisingtaskmodelhasbeenproposed,recommended,whichbringsnewconceptsandperspectivesongrammarteachinginChina.SotheyputforwardtheexplicitinteractivetaskinordertofacilitatetheinterlanguagedevelopmentofEFLlearners.YiRenrong(2009)advocateusingchunktheorytoimprovetheeffectsofthegrammarinstructioninclassroom,whichistime-savingandeffect-raisingandistheteachingmethodrecommendedbythenewcurriculumreforms.Whenitcomestostudiesaimingatmakingcomparisonsoftheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches,especiallyexperimentalstudiesonthesubjectathome,muchlessresearchescanbefound.However,somelanguageresearchershadmadetheireffortsandattemptsandsomevaluablefindingshadbeendisplayedintheirstudies.ChenShunmeng(2007)hadconductedanexperimentontheacquisitionofthreegrammaritemsamong101vocationalcollegestudentsinChinawiththedeductiveapproachonlyandcombinationofthetwoapproaches,andfoundthatthecombinationofthetwomethodsisbetterthanthedeductiveonlyoneinmasteringthegrammarrulesandimprovingthecommunicativelevel.Thatis,thecombinationismorebeneficialfortheacquisitionofthegrammarknowledge.JiangXin(2012)studiedtheeffectsofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarteachingapproachesontheacquisitionofsubjunctivemoodamong70Englishmajorsophomoresandfoundthatingrammarteaching,employingbothinductiveapproachanddeductiveapproachmaybemoreeffectivethanadoptingeitheroftheapproachalone.Thesetwofindingsobtainedsignificantlysimilarresults,thatis,combinationofthetwoisbetterthanonlyoneapproachinteachingtheirtargetgrammaritems.However,theydidnotmentionanyonhowtomakeaeffectivecombination.Yi-ChenChiang(2011)didtheexperimentamong53collegeEnglishmajorfreshmaninsouthernTaiwanontheacquisitionof10grammaticalitemsin(EFL)settings.Andmoreresultsarefound:Firstly,forsomeitems,thereisnosignificantdifferencefoundbetweentwomethods;Secondly,forothers,therearesomesignificantdifferencesfoundbetweentwomethods.Yuen,Ho-yan,Teresa(2009)didtheexperimentontheacquisitionofparticiplesin(EFL)settingwith48universitystudentswithCantoneseas10 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewtheirmother-tongueandhavetheresultsasfollows:Atfirst,deductiveteachingcontributestoimmediateimprovementsingrammarwithrelationtoparticiplesandsentencestructures;Secondly,inductiveteachingnotonlydeliverslong-termimprovementsingrammarrelatedtoparticiples,butitalsodevelopsmanygenericskillsinthelongerterm.WangPeiling(2010)carriedouttheexperimentamong98EnglishmajoredfreshmenfromtwoFreshmanEnglishGrammarclassesonthegrammaracquisitionofverbtenses,nounclauses,adjectiveclauses,andconditionalsentences.Asaresult,shefoundmoststudentspreferredthedeductiveapproach,andthedeductiveapproachindeedhelpedstudentlearnbetterandrememberlongerthantheinductiveapproachinverbtenses,adjectiveclauses,andconditionalsentences,althoughthedifferencedidnotachievethesignificantlevel.Alltheaboveexperimentswerecarriedoutamongthecollegestudents,buthereisonlyoneinwhichtheexperimentisconductedonthe70EighthgradersatajuniorhighschoolinKaohsiungCity.ThegrammaritemsusedintheexperimentislearningofEnglishrelativeclausesandtheresultisthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweeninductiveanddeductivegroups.Tosumup,bothinChinaandabroad,agreatnumberofexperimentshavebeendonetomakeacomparisonbetweenthedeductiveandinductivegrammarteachingapproaches,meanwhile,morefactorshavebeenconsideredandincidentallystudied,suchasshort-termandlong-termeffectsaswellasthelearners’individualcharacteristics.However,thedifferencesamongthemareobvious.Firstofall,althoughmanyexperimentshavebeendoneinmanysettings,stillmostofthemareamongcollegestudentsandweredoneintheclassroomsonuniversitycampus.Comparedwiththem,experimentsconductedinMiddleSchoolsareveryrare.Amongtheexperimentsmentionedabove,thereareonlythreeJia-YuanShih(2008),YukiMaehara(2011)andG.Jean,D.Simard(2013),intheirstudies,MiddleSchoolstudentsareconcerned.SothepresentstudywillfocusontheSeniorHighSchoolstudents.Secondly,shorttermandlong-termeffectsofthetwoapproachesaretheimportantfactors,whichhavegreateffectsontheultimateresultsoflearningandteaching.SiminChalipa(2013),Se´verineVogel,CarolHerron,StevenP.Cole,HollyYork(2011)andYuen,Ho-yan,Teresa(2009),intheirstudies,shortandlong-termeffectsareasaimportantfactor.Thatisnotenough,sothepresentstudywillconsiderthemasoneofimportantobjectives.Lastbutnotleast,thereisnotafindingorresultcanbewidelyaccepted,thisisalsothereasonfordoingtheexperiment.11 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample2.3DefinitionsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesDeductiveandinductivereasoning,asthebasicwayforreasoning,havelongbeenusedinawideareaofscientificresearches.Eveningrammarinstruction,teachinggrammardeductivelyhasalonghistoryaswell.However,whatisreallythedeductivegrammarinstructionandwhatisreallyinductivegrammarinstruction?And,whatarerelationsbetweenthem?Thefollowingpartofthechapterwilldiscusstheseterms.2.3.1DeductivegrammarinstructionapproachDeductiveapproachmeansfromgeneraltospecific,fromrulestoexamples.Deductionistypicallypresentedasthatmodeofinferencethatmovesfromgeneralprincipletoparticularinstance,andforwhichtherearewellknownandancientrules(FarzadMahootian&TimothyE.Eastman2009).Deductiveinstructioninvolvesruleexplanation(Norris&Ortega,2000;citedinRosemaryErlam(2003))byateacheratthebeginningofalessonjustbeforestudentsengageintheirlanguagepractice(seeResearchinDeductive/InductiveInstruction).Ingrammarinstruction,itoftenhasitsregulargrammarteachingprocedures:firstofall,theruleswererepresented;andthenpracticewiththerulesfollowed,finallysomeproducingworkwiththeruleasproductwasdone.Sopresentation,practicetogetherwithproductmakesPPPor3P,anditisthetypicalrouteofthedeductivegrammarinstruction.Asthetraditionalapproachtogrammarteaching,havingbeenusedforsolong,thedeductivegrammarinstructionapproachhasitsadvantages.Firstofall,itstime-savingadvantageisobviouscomparedtotheinductiveinstructionforitdirectlygetstothegrammarrulesbyteachers’explanations,butdonotneedtoofferlearnerssufficienttimetoinducethembythemselves.Moreover,ifagrammarruleistoodifficultortooabstractforthem,itwillbehardorevenimpossibleforlearnerstoacquireiteveniftheycouldinvestlargeamounttimeonit.Secondly,forlanguageteachers,deductivegrammarinstructionapproachprovidesmuchmoreflexibility.Teacherscoulddealwithlanguagepointswhenevertheyappearinanycontext,andtheydonotneedtodomanypreparationsinadvance.Thirdly,deductiveapproachsatisfiesmanystudents"expectationsaboutclassroomstudy,especiallyforthoselearnerswhohaveananalyticallearningstyle.Everycoinhastwosides.Wherethereareadvantages,therearedisadvantages.Ofcourse,theconventionalapproachhasalsoitsdisadvantagesjustasfollows.Tobeginwith,thedeductivegrammarinstructionapproachrequireslearners’lastingattentionandconsciousnesstotheruleexplanations,whichisapttocauselearners’exhaustion.Ifteachers’explanationisnotclearorsimpleenoughforlearnersorsome12 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewgrammaticaltermsaredifficulttounderstandforthem,learnersmaygetfrustratedorevenloseinterestinstudy.Secondly,indeductivegrammarinstruction,teachersarecenteredbutstudentstosomeextentaremarginalized,whichisnotbeneficialtocultivatingstudents’learnerautonomyandmayleadtostudents’independenceonteachersinstudy.Thirdly,indeductivegrammarinstruction,itiseasyforlearnerstorealizethatgrammarlearningisequaltogrammaticalrulememorization,whichwouldcausestudentstorotemorebutunderstandless.Eventually,learnersmaygetgrammarlearningoversimplifiedbutactuallyputthemintogreattroubleinthecourseofgrammarlearning.2.3.2InductivegrammarinstructionapproachDeductiveapproachmeansfromspecifictogeneral,examplesfromtorules.Induction,intheclassicalAristotlemode,isinferencethatmovesfrommanyparticularinstancestoageneralprinciple(FarzadMahootian&TimothyE.Eastman2009).Ininductiveinstruction,learnersdirectlyattendtoparticularformsandtrytoarriveatmetalinguisticgeneralizationsontheirown(Norris&Ortega,2000;citedinRosemaryErlam(2003)).So,intheinductivegrammarinstruction,firstofall,teachershouldprepareampleexampleswhichcontainthetargetgrammaritemsinthehopeofstudents’self-discoveryoftherulebyobservation,comparisonandratiocinationevenguessingandsoon.Itisobviousthat,comparedwiththedeductiveapproach,thisapproachhasitsspecialadvantagesaswell.Inthefirstplace,contrarytothedeductiveapproach,inductivegrammarinstruction,owingtoitslearner-centered,canprovokelearners’incentivesandinitiatives,sothatgrammarlearningcanbeinteresting,meaningfulandeffective.Next,problem-solvingandpattern-recognizingprocessininductiveapproachmay,ontheonehand,makegrammarlearningmoreinterestingandprovoking;ontheotherhand,ifsuccessful,learnerswouldbegreatlyencouragedandgainmuchmoremotivationsandsenseofachievementinlanguagelearning.Lastly,iflearningprocessinvolvescollaborationorteamwork,grammarrules’studymaybenefitthemnotonlygrammarbutalsoothers.Advantagesalwayskeepcompanywithdisadvantagesinthisworld,oftheinductiveapproach,itcontainsthefollowingones.Firstofall,inductivegrammarinstructionapproach’stime-consumingdisadvantagecomparedwithdeductiveoneisobvious.Itispossibleforlearnerstoworkoutthegrammarrulesbythemselvesbutitneedtimewhileitisalsopossiblethatlearnerscouldnotworkoutorhadworkedoutbutinwrongway.Secondly,rule-discoveringprocessmaycauselearnerstomistakenlybelievethatgrammarrulesaretheaimsoflanguagestudyratherthatameans.Thirdly,ininductivegrammarinstruction13 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleapproach,teachersarerequiredtoplantheirlessonsmorecarefully.Inadditiontopreparationsformaterials,howtoguidelearnerstoabetterwaytoworkouttherulesisevenmorecrucial,whichwouldbeapttomaketeachersgiveuptheapproach.Althoughtheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionareoftendiscussedrespectivelywhenitcomestothedifferencebetweenthemasisrepresentedabove,yettoabsolutelyorcompletelydistinguishthemisnearlyimpossibleandisnotnecessary,afterall,theyareinonelinewitheachother.RosemaryErlam（2003）statedthatbothinductiveanddeductivemethodsofinstructionfitalongwhatNorrisandOrtega(2000)describedasacontinuumofexplicitnessthatrangesfromthemoreexplicit(deductive)tothelessexplicit(inductive).Accordingtothestatement,wecouldseetherelationsbetweendeductiveandinductiveinstructions.Thedeductiveapproachismostcloselyassociatedwiththegrammar-translationmethodofteachinglanguages,whileaninductiveapproachisconsideredcharacteristicofaudiolingualism,wheremeaningandgrammarwerenotexplicitlyexplainedbutinducedfromcarefullygradedexposuretoandpracticewithexamplesinsituationsandsubstitutiontables(JacquelineGollin1998).Sotosomeextent,thedifferencesbetweenthedeductiveandinductiveapproachesjustlieinthewayofteachingexplicitlyorlearningimplicitlyorthematterofgrammarrulesbeforeorafterexamples.Similarly,inonestudy(Seliger,1975),hepointedoutthatinductiveinstructioninvolvedpresentationofthegrammaticalrulebytheteacherattheendofthelesson,butdeductiveoneatthebeginningofthelesson.2.3.3ThedeductiveandinductiveinstructionapproachesinthepresentstudyAccordingtothepreviousdiscussion,inductivegrammarinstructionanddeductivegrammarinstructionarealwaysrelatedwitheachother.However,therearedifferencesbetweenthem.Afterall,theyaretwodifferentgrammarteachingapproaches.Berman(1979)hasneatlysummarizedthedistinctionbetweenthetwogrammarteachingapproachesasfollows:14 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewBasedontheabovedescriptionandthegrammarteachingpractice,inthepresentstudy,deductivegrammarteachingapproachwillalwaysfollowtheroute:rules→examples→practice→producingworkwhiletheinductivegrammarteachingapproachingrammarteachingpracticefollowsthefollowingroute:examples→rules→practice→producingwork.Itisobviousthatthelasttwostepsofthetwogrammarinstructionsarethesameinclassroompractice.Thenthekeydifferenceofthetwogrammarinstructionapproachesliesin,inthedeductiveinstructionapproach,therulesareexplicitlystatedatthebeginningoftheclass,butintheinductiveinstructionapproach,rulesarehidingintheexamples,andtheyneedtobeelicitedeitherbystudentsorbystudentswiththehelpofteacher.So,asamatteroffact,themainpointfortheinductivegrammarinstructionisthecourseoftheelicitingoftherules,inwhich,students’thinkingactivitiesaremostlyinvolved.However,oncetherulesareworkedout,inthefollowingsteps,studentswouldcometotheroutefromtheruletotheexamples.Atthetime,thetwoapproacheswillbelinkedintoacircle.So,todistinguishthetwoapproaches,examplesandrules,whichoneisthefirststepisactuallyacrucialfactoringrammarteachingpractice.Inthepresentstudy,wemakesrulesfirstthedeductivegrammarinstructionandexamplesfirsttheinductivegrammarinstruction.15 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleChapterThreeTheoreticalFoundationsForalongtime,inthefieldofeducation,howtoteachhasbeenadominantorientation,sothedeductiveinstructionapproach,inwhich,teacherisoftenthecenterintheclassroom,hasbeenthepopularinstructionapproachinthecircumstance.However,thesituationhaschangedwiththedevelopmentofthepsychologyandpedagogy.Thepositionoftheteacherasthecenterintheclassroomhasbeenchallengedbymanyeducatorsandresearchers,whoexclaimedthatstudentsshouldbethecenterinclassroom.Forexample,thecognitiveconstructivistJeanPiagetstatesthat,unlikethebehavioristswhothinkthatlearningisthechangeofbehaviorcausedbytheconsistentenforcementorthecourseofhabituation,learningisthecourseofthelearners’activereconstructionsoftheschemabythemselves.Social-culturalconstructivistLevVygotskycontendsthatlearningisthecourseoftheconstruction,isthecourseoflearnerconstantform,enrichandadjusttheirstructureofexperiencebyinteractionofthenewandoldexperience.Teachingisnotjustinputtingknowledgefromoutsideoftheworldintolearners’heads,butratheritisguidingthemtoconstructingtheirnewexperiencebasedontheoldexperience(ChengQi,LiuRude,2007).Theselearner-centeredteachingandlearningtheorieshavegreatlyinfluencedcurrentinstructions.Conventionaldeductiveinstruction,inwhichtheteacheristhecenter,hasbeengreatlychallengedbythelearner-centeredinductiveinstruction,nowadays.However,bothteacher-centereddeductiveinstructionandlearner-centeredinductiveinstructioneventuallyleadtothelearningoracquisitionoflanguage,whichisoutofquestion.Whateverstudentsaretryingtolearnandwhatevermethodteachersareemployingintheirlessons,studentsthemselveshavetoprocessinthemindwhathaslearned.Andtheyhavetoconstructtheirownsystemofknowledgerelyingontheirownefforts.Teachersjustworkasascaffoldertoofferstudentsmoreconvenienceintheirlearning.Sothispartisashortintroductionabouttheoriesconcerninggrammarteachingandlearning,amongwhichconstructivism,learningbydiscoveryandlearningbyacceptanceaswellasZoneofProximalDevelopment(ZDP)willbediscussed.3.1ConstructivismConstructivism,derivedfromcognitivetheory,isaseriesoftheoriesaboutknowledgeandlearning,whichdescribesboththenatureofknowledgeandtheprocessofacquiringknowledge.Sinceitsinceptioninthe1980s,constructivismhascausedprofoundinfluenceoncurrentlearningandteaching.Atonetime,inmanycountries,theireducationorcurriculumreformsoftenmakeconstructivismtheirtheoreticalfoundation.Takeourcountry’snewesteducationandcurriculumreforminitiatedin2001asanexample,in16 ChapterThreeTheoreticalFoundationsmanydocumentsandacademicliterature,learner-centeredteachinghasbeenspeciallyadvocatedcomparedwiththeteacher-centeredteaching.Constructivismisdividedintovariousschools:radicalconstructivism,socialconstructivism,socio-culturalcognition,socialconstructivism,information-processingconstructivismandcyberneticsystem.Althoughdifferentschoolshavedifferentopinions,yettheyhavemanyincommon.Firstofall,tosomeextent,theyallchallengetheobjectivityandcertaintyofknowledge,andputforwardaswellasemphasizethedynamicoftheknowledge.Secondly,theyallcontendthatlearningisnotonlythetransformationorknowledgefromtheoutsidetoinside,butisbythecourseofthelearnersactivelyconstructingtheirownknowledge,thatis,bytwo-wayinteractingofoldandnewknowledge,toenrichandreconstructtheirownknowledge.Thirdly,owingtothedynamicsandrelativityofknowledgeaswellasthecourseofconstructionoflearning,teachingisnolongeratransformationofobjective,certainandreadyknowledge,butinitiatinglearners’oldknowledgesoastopromotethegrowthofknowledge.(ChengQi,LiuRude,2007).Accordingtotheabovedescription,itisobviousthelearnerhasbecomethecenteroftheteachingandlearning,learninghasbecomestudents’ownactivitiesbyadjusting,constructing,transferringandreforming.Basedonthetheoriesofconstructivism,somenewteachingandlearningapproachesareinventedtoimprovetheteachingandlearningpractice.Amongtheseapproaches,learningbydiscoveryandscaffoldinghavemadeagreatdifferencetoteachingandlearningpractice.ZPD,asanimportantconcept,whichwasproposedbytheSocial-culturalconstructivistLevVygotsky,hasprovidednewperspectiveforteachingandlearning.3.2LearningbydiscoveryandlearningbyacceptanceLearningbydiscoveryordiscoverylearningandlearningbyacceptancearetwodifferentmeansoflearning,buttheyare,asamatteroffact,interrelatedwitheachotherclosely.Ausubelhadcarefullydistinguishedlearningbydiscoveryandlearningbyacceptance.Itisnotdifficulttounderstandthedifferencesinlearningbydiscoveryandlearningbyacceptance.Inlearningbyacceptance,themainlearningcontentsaretaughttostudentsinthewayofconclusion.Forstudents,learningdoesnotincludeanydiscovery,andtheonlydemandforthemistogetthecontentsinternalizedsothattheyaretoberecalledoremployedinothersituations.Thebasicfeatureofdiscoverylearningisthatlearningcontentsisnotbedirectlytaughttostudents,butrathertheyneedtobediscoveredautomatically17 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplebystudentsthemselves.Inotherwords,themaintaskoflearningistodiscover,afterwardstheproceduresarethesameaslearningbyacceptance.Thatistosay,tomakewhathavebeendiscoveredinternalizedsothattheyaretobeusedinacertaincaseinthefuture.Inaword,discoverylearningjustgetsonemorestepthanlearningbyacceptancebeforewhatlearnedareinternalized,thatis,“discovery”,nootherdifferences.(ShiLiangfang,2001).DavidP.Ausubel(1961)indicatedthatattheappropriatetimeandplace,andforcarefullydesignatedpurposes,learningbydiscoveryhasitsdefensibleusesandundoubtedadvantages.Brunerreckonsthatdiscoverlearninghasfourimportfunctions:Thefirstoneisthatitcanpromotepotentialofintelligenceoflearners.Learnersthemselvescomeupwithexploringmodelofproblemsolution,learningtohowtotransformandorganizeinformation,whichwouldmakethemlearnmorethanthat;Thesecondisthatitcancontributetoconvertingouterawardstoinnermotivationsothatlearnersaremorecontentwiththecourseoflearning;Thethirdisthatitcanassistlearnerstomasterhowtoseektheoptimalmethodandstrategy;Thelastoneisthatitcandedicatetoinformationpreservationandsearch(ChengQi,LiuRude,2007).Ofcourse,discoveringlearningisnotwithoutitsdisadvantages.Firstofall,itconsumesmoretimecomparedwithlearningbyacceptance,ifitisemployedmoreforlearnersneedtofindanswers,seeksolutions,workoutrulesorfigureoutresultsandsoforthbythemselves.Moreover,sometime,twinsandturnsareunavoidable.Secondly,itisnotappropriateforallsubjects.Forinstance,itissuitableformath,physicsandchemistrybutnotforliteratureandhistory.Thirdly,itneglectsthedifferencesinlearners.Somestudentswholagbehindmayeasilygetfrustratedorevenhurtowingtofailuresindiscovering.Lastly,discoveringlearningismorelikelytohappenbychance,whichisnotasreliableaslearningbyacceptance(XiongShirong&XuJing,2005).Actually,learningbydiscoveringandinductiveinstruction,learningbyacceptanceanddeductiveinstructionareactuallythesameconceptbutindifferentperspectives.Oneisfromtheperspectiveoflearningandtheotherisfromtheperspectiveofteaching.Asforthegrammarinstruction,ZarvaTeodorandDoinaVeneraMunteanu(2013)statethattheacquisitionofgrammarthroughdiscoverytriestodeterminethepupilstounderstandthemainoperatingrulesofthelanguage,whichrestupontheobservationandexperimentalcapacity,onreasonandargument.Oftenassociatedwithaninductiveapproach,itcannotbereducedtothis,asitalsoappealstodeductivereasoning.So,justaswhathasbeendiscussedintheabovechapter,thetwoapproachesareoftenrelated18 ChapterThreeTheoreticalFoundationseachotherclosely.Toalargeextent,theyarejusttwodifferentstartingpointofacircle,whichwouldgetconnectedsoonerorlateratapoint.3.3ZoneofProximalDevelopmentZoneofProximalDevelopment(ZPD)isanimportantconceptinteachingandlearningsinceitwasfirstinventedbythesocial-culturalconstructivistandpsychologistLevVygotsky,whointroducedthesocial-culturallearningaspectintoconstructivism.LevVygotskyputforwardthenewconcept“zoneofproximaldevelopment”,whichmeansthedistancebetweenlearners’presentknowledgelevelandthepotentiallevelwiththehelpoftheoutside,liketeachers,peersorparentsandsoon.HosseinNassajiandJunTian(2010)statesthat,centraltotheVygotskiansocioculturaltheoryisthenotionofZPD,whichrefersto‘thedistancebetweentheactualdevelopmentallevelasdeterminedbyindependentproblemsolvingandthelevelofpotentialdevelopmentasdeterminedthroughproblemsolvingunderadultguidanceorincollaborationwithmorecapablepeers’(Vygotsky,1978,p.86).AccordingtotheabovedefinitionofZPD,foranylearner,therearealwaystwodevelopmentallevelsconcerningtheirprogressoflearning.Oneishisorherpresentactualdevelopmentallevel,andtheotheristhefuturepotentialdevelopmentallevelwiththeassistanceofothers.Li-JenKuo,TingDongandXiaoyingWu,MayJadallah,RichardC.Anderson,KimNguyen-Jahiel,BrianW.Miller,Il-HeeKim,(2011)pointoutthateverychildhasanactualandapotentiallevelofdevelopment.Aproblemthatachildcanindependentlysolvedefineshisorheractuallevelofdevelopment,whereasaproblemthatheorshecansolveunderanadult’sguidanceorincollaborationwithothersdefinesthischild’spotentiallevelofdevelopment(Rogoff&Wertsch,1984).Thisconcepthasprovidesusaveryusefulreferencetotheclassroomteaching.HosseinNassajiandJunTian(2010)statedthatthenotionofZPDhighlightstheimportanceofcollaborativework,becauseitisbelievedthatwhenlearnerscollaboratewithintheirZPD,theyusetheirexistingknowledgetodevelopwhattheyhavenotyetmasteredindependently.AccordingtoZPD,intheclassroomteachingandlearning,forateacher,heorsheshouldfirstofallmakesureofthestudents’presentactualdevelopmentallevel.Andthen,anappropriateproblem,taskorgoalshouldbeprepared,thisisthecrucialstepsinthecourseofstudents’learning.Iftheyaretoodifficultforstudentstoreachfororitistooeasyforstudents,theresultsofthelearningwouldbeprobablyveryterrible.Next,iftheproblem,taskorgoalcanbeappropriateforstudents,thenitistimeforteachertothinkwhatkindsofassistanceateachershouldoffer.Inthissituation,itcomesactuallytothescaffolding,which,19 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleasamatteroffact,istheassistancethattheteacheroftenoffersforhisorherstudents.Li-JenKuo,TingDongandXiaoyingWu,MayJadallah,RichardC.Anderson,KimNguyen-Jahiel,BrianW.Miller,Il-HeeKim,(2011)agreethatthescaffoldingmetaphorhasbeenusedtodescribehoweducatorscanbestassistlearnerswithinthezoneofproximaldevelopmenttonudgethemforwarduntilthelearnerscanindependentlyapplyanewlyacquiredstrategy.Herewecouldeasilysensethatintheteachingandlearningpractice,learners’actualdevelopmentallevelsarealwaysonthego,orwesay,theyaredynamic.Soteachershavetocontinuouslyadjusthisorherassistanceorguidanceaccordingtothestudents’ever-changingactualdevelopmentallevelstofacilitatestudents’growthanddevelopment.Anotheraspecthereisworthmentioningisthatpeerassistanceisalsoawaytohelpstudents’reachtothepotentialdevelopmentallevels,that,eventosomeextentcantaketheplacetheteacher’sassistance.Thatisthereasonwhycollaborationandcooperationareadvocatedincurrentclassroomteaching.SointheZPDtheory,assistanceandguidancebothfromtheteachersandpeersofthelearnersareofgreatsignificancetothelearners’growthanddevelopmentintheclassroomteachingandlearningsetting,andactually,itfunctionsasthescaffoldasametaphorinteachingandlearning.However,scaffoldinghasbeenanotherapproachwhichiscalledscaffoldinginstructionineducationbymanyresearchersandeducators.Asweallknowthatscaffoldisusuallyusedinthefieldofarchitecture,ineducationitwasborrowedtointerpretateachingmodel.Inthemodel,teachers’functionisjustlikethescaffoldinthearchitecture.Inteaching,teachersassistandguidestudentstomaster,constructandinternalizetheknowledgeandskillslearned,andfurthertoinitiatethemtothehigherlevelcognition.Atlast,teachersjusthandoverthemanagementoflearningtasktostudentsthemselves,andremovethescaffoldinthehopeoflearners’ultimateindependentlearning.Therearetwotypesofscaffoldinginstructions(ChengQi,LiuRude,2007),oneistheinteractiveandtheotherisnon-interactivescaffoldinginstruction.Intheinteractiveone,teacherscanofferscaffoldinthefollowingways.Demonstration:bydemonstratinghowtosolveaproblem,teachersprovideanexampletosolvetheproblem;Thinking-aloud:teachersspeakoutthewayhowtoworkouttheproblemonfinishataskorachieveagoal;Question-raising:byraisingquestions,teachersassistorguidestudentstogotclosetothesolutiontotheproblem;orprovidingnewcluesorgettingthemconcentrateonthetasktilltheycouldworkouttheproblem,orfinishataskorachieveagoal.20 ChapterThreeTheoreticalFoundationsInthenon-interactivescaffoldinginstruction,teacherscanprovidethescaffoldbychangingthetextbooksorbymeansofwrittenororaltipsandimplications.Asamatteroffact,thesetypesofthescaffoldsareactually,ormoreorless,thesameasthehelporimplicationswhichareprovidedtostudentsininductiveinstructionapproach.21 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleChapterFourResearchMethodologyAccordingtoChapterTwotheliteraturereview,anumberofresearchershavemadeagreatmanyexplorationsontheeffectsofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarteachingapproaches,forthepurposeofachievinganyavailableimplicationstoimprovelanguagelearningefficiency.However,thefindingsandtheresultsarevariousduetothedifferencesofthevariablesandtreatmentsaswellasotherfactorsoftheeducationsettings,especiallythecomplexityofthenatureofinstructionandeducation.Somefindingssupportthattheinductivegrammarteachingapproachismorebeneficialthanthedeductiveone;othersexclaimthatthedeductivegrammarteachingapproachismoreeffectivethantheinductiveone.Somestudiesfurtherextendtheinvestigationtotheshort-termandlong-termeffectsofthetwoapproaches.Still,theresultsareinconsistentwitheachother.Soitisnecessarytofurtherprobeintothequestionattemptingtoseekoutanyfurtherfindings.Therefore,inthepresentstudy,thequestionswillbeexploredcontinuouslytofindoutmoreandfurtherimplicationstothelanguageteachingpractice,thatis,inthestudy,comparisonsoftheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarteachingapproachesintheshort-termandinthelong-termwillbemadeintheexperiment.Inthelastchapter,therelevanttheoriesontheinductiveanddeductivegrammarlearningandteachinghavebeendiscussed.Buttheoryisalwayscorrelatedwithpracticeinthewaytheorycomesfrompracticeandshouldgobacktopractice.Ontheonehand,thetheoryistoguideandpromotepracticalactivities;ontheotherhand,theorywillbecheckedinpracticetoseeitscorrectnessandeffectivenessaswellasitssignificanceinpractice.Sointhepresentchapter,aquasiexperimentwillbedesignedtofindsomeanswerstothequestionraisedintheChapterOne.Inordertoobtainpreciseandreliableexperimentaldata,tomakeanelaborativeexperimentaldesignandstrictlyconducttheexperimentisofgreatsignificancetothepresentinvestigation.So,next,morespecificdetailsaboutthemwillbeelaboratedstepbystep.4.1ResearchquestionsAsiselaboratedintheliteraturereviewofChapterTwo,deductivegrammarinstructionapproachhadbeenthedominantmethodsinlanguagelearningandteachingclassroominthetimeswhenGTMispopular,whichhadbeenconsideredaseffectivemethodtoassistinmasteringgrammarrules.Althoughthemethodhasitsflawsandhadbeenexcludedforsometimeowingtoitsoppositiontothenewinductivemethod,stillitisacceptedbymanylanguageresearcherandteacherandiswidelyusedintoday’slanguageteaching22 ChapterFourResearchMethodologyandlearningclasses.Moreover,thistraditionalmethodrecentlyhasbeenintrendofreturningtothenowadayslanguageclassroom.Deductivegrammarinstructionapproach,ontheotherhand,isregardedasbetterandpopularmethodingrammarteachingandlearningatpresent,whichisbelievedtobelearner-centered,forwhichitisconsideredtobecapableofspurringlearners’initiativeandenthusiasm.Soithasbeendebatedindispensableinthefieldofforeignlanguageteaching.Itisoutofquestionthatthroughinductiveapproachthelearnerscanfullymobilizetheirstoredexperience,knowledgeandcapability.Learners’abilitiesandskillsofself-discoveryandnaturalacquisitionaretobedeveloped.Consideringdeduction,itplaysanirreplaceableroleindealingwiththecomplexandobscureconceptualknowledge,especiallyintheenvironmentofEFLinChina.AlthoughinductiveapproachhasbeenhighlyadvocatedsincetheimplementationofEnglishNewCurriculumStandard,itisnotwisetoembraceitexclusivelyinanysituation.Teachersshouldbeflexibleinapplyingthetwoapproachesaccordingtodifferentcontext,knowledgedifficultydegreeandstudents’learningstyles.Itisimportanttoworkouthowtomaximizethemeritsandminimizedrawbacksofbothstrategies.ThisstudyaimstocomparetheeffectivenessandefficiencyofinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionsinSeniorHighSchools.Ateachingexperimentwillbeconductedinaruralseniorhighclass,accompaniedwithquestionnairestofindoutwhichoneismoreeffective,consideringtheshort-termandlongtermeffects.So,thefollowingquestionswillbetheobjectsofthestudy:Firstly,inductiveanddeductivegrammarteachingapproaches,whichoneismoreeffectiveinteachingthetargetgrammaritem―theEmphaticPatterntoseniorhighschoolstudentsinshort-term?Secondly,inductiveanddeductivegrammarteachingapproaches,whichoneismoreeffectiveinteachingthetargetgrammaritem―theEmphaticPatterntoseniorhighschoolstudentsinlong-term?4.2SubjectsAsiselaboratedabove,theexperimentiscalledthequasi-experimentthereasonforthatistheexperimentalsubjects,twonaturalclasses，ClassOneandClassTwo,whoarenotchosenatrandom,buttheteacher,whohadtheexperimentallessons,istheEnglishteacherofthetwoclasses.Actually,thetwoclassesarefromamongeighteenclassesinSeniorTwo,whichbelongtoanordinaryruralseniorhighschoolinGansuProvince.SoClassOnewillbetheExperimentalClass(EC),inwhichthereare80students,46boysand34girls.23 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleIntheclass,theteacherwilladopttheteachingplanspeciallydesignedfortheinductivegrammarteachingapproach;ClassTwowillbetheControlClass(CC),inwhichthereare78students,29boysand49girls,theteacherwillemploytheteachingplanspeciallydesignedforthedeductivegrammarteachingapproach.Thetwoapproachescouldbemasteredbygoodexplanationaccordingtothetheoryofthedeductiveandinductivegrammarinstructionsaswellascarefullydesignedteachingplansaheadaccordingtothedifferencesofthetwoapproachesbothintheoryandinpractice.Whattheteachertodoisjusthavinglessonsstepbystepdependingonthepreparedteachingplans,atthesametime,theauthorhadattendeachlessontoobserveandputdownsomedetailsintheclasstomakesuretowhichextentthelessonshavecarriedoutthepreviousteachingplans.Moreover,theteacherhasbeenteachingEnglishfortenyears,whoisconsideredasanexperiencedoneintheschool.Inaddition,sheisfamiliarwiththetwogrammarinstructionapproaches.Theexperimentisattemptingtomakeacomparisonoftheeffectsofthetwogrammarinstructionapproaches,soitisofgreatimportancetoguaranteethatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwopopulationsinthemasteryofthetargetgrammaticalitemsaswellasinEnglishintegrativecompetence.Onlyiftheprerequisiteissatisfied,theresultoftheexperimentcouldbepersuasiveandvaluable.So,thetwoclasses’mid-termexaminationgradesinthissemesterareutilizedtoassesstheirinitiativebasisandintegrativeEnglishcompetence.Moreover,apre-testoftheskillsoftheEmphaticPatternhasbeenadministratedaswellbeforetheexperiment.4.3InstrumentsIntheempiricalstudy,toobtainthereliabledataisofgreatsignificancetotheresultsoftheexperiment,sofindingandusingtheproperinstrumentsisverynecessaryandcrucialforthefinalresults.Inthisquasiexperiment,Pre-test,Immediate-testandDelayed-testareusedtocollectthedata.Atthesametime,twoquestionnaireswerehandedouttostudentstogetfurtherinformationwhichcouldnotbeworkedoutinthetests,whicharetheidenticalPre-questionnairesforECandCCandthetwodifferentPost-questionnairesseparatelyforECandCC.4.3.1TestsTherearethreeteststhatareadministratedduringtheprocessoftheexperiment,thePre-test,theImmediate-test,andtheDelayedtest.Thepre-testistoaccesswhetherthereissignificantdifferencebetweentheECandCCintheskillsofthetargetgrammaritemsaswellasintegrativeEnglishcompetence.24 ChapterFourResearchMethodologyTheImmediate-testandtheDelayed-testarerespectivelytoassesstheshort-termandthelong-termeffectsofthetwogrammarinstructionapproachesinteachingEmphaticPattern.Therearethreesectionsineachtest(seeAppendixVI,AppendixVII,AppendixVIII).SectionOneisthemultiple-choice,inwhichthereare12itemsandeachitemhasbeencarefullyselectedfromthepastyears’NMET(NationalMatriculationEnglishTest),whichisbelievedbymanyteachersandresearcherstobegoodqualitywithgreatreliabilityandvalidity.SectionTwois“Rewritethesentenceemphasizingtheverbsinthesentences”,whichincluded4itemsandthelastsectionis“RewritethesentencewiththeEmphaticPatternaccordingtotheimplications”.Inordertoensureallthecandidatesunderstandwhattodointhetest,thesentencepatternisadheredtothedemand,“Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclause”.Infact,SectionTwoandThreearewhatcalledinlanguagetesttransformation,sotherearetwotypesofitemsinthetest,oneismultiple-choiceitemsandtheotheristransformationitems.Thereasonswhythetestsaredesignedlikethisaremany.Tobeginwith,consideringthedrawbacksofthemultiple-choiceitems,transformationitemsaredesignedtoimprovethevalidityofthetest.(LiuRongqing&HanBaochen,2010)Transformationitemsareusefulmeansofteachingandtesting,whichontheonehand,canteststudents’masteryofvarioussentencestructures,ontheotherhand,canteststudents’grammaticalknowledgewhichisoutofreachofthemultiple-choice.Moreover,transformationitemsareclosetothetesttypeofwriting,whichattachesmuchimportancetotestingthegrammaticalstructuresratherthantheabilitiestocreatesentences.Atthesametime,transformationitemsarethetypesofsubjectivetests,whichhavetheirownadvantagesoverthetypesofobjectivetests.Somelanguagetestspecialistsagreethatthetestwillbemoreefficientifitcombinesthesubjectiveandobjectivetestinatest.Therefore,inthetests,SectionTwoandThreearedeliberatelydesignedtobetransformationitems.Secondly,althoughthemultiple-choiceistherighttypeofitemsusedtotestdiscrete-pointslanguageknowledgelikegrammaticalrules,yet,ifinatestthereisonlyonetypeofthisitem,itwillbedifficulttoguaranteethetestvalidityaswellasreliability.Thus,transformationitemsareaddedtothetesttoenhancethevalidityandreliability.Furthermore,inordertoobtainthecomparabilityoftheresultsofPre-test,Immediate-testandDelayed-test,itiscrucialtomakesurethatthethreetestsareinhighconsistencyintestcontents,difficultyandsoforth.Especiallymakingeveryefforttokeepthesamedifficultyinthethreetestsisofgreatsignificancetothecomparabilityofthefinalresultsofthetwogrammarinstructionapproaches,25 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplewhichisalsotheimportantmeasurementusedtoincreasethereliabilityofthetest.Inthepresentstudy,measurestakentopursuetheconsistencyofthetestdifficultyareasfollows.Inthefirstplace,inordertoensuretheequaldifficultyofthethreetests,alistofgrammarrulesconcerningtheemphaticsentenceismade.Afterthat,threeitemsforeachgrammarrule,whicharebelievedtohavetheconsistentdifficultyandbetestingthesamegrammarrule,areselectedfromtheNMET.Andthen,threeitemsarerespectivelydistributedtothePre-test,Immediate-testandPost-testatrandom.Forexample,iftheaimistoemphasizetheadverbialoftheplace,thethreeequalitemsareasfollows:Itwasatthegate_____hetoldmethenews.A.thatB.whatC.whichD.whenItwasalongtheMississippiRiver______MarkTwainspentmuchofhischildhood.A.howB.WhichC.thatD.whereItwasinNewZealand___ElizabethfirstmetMr.Smith.A.thatB.HowC.WhichD.whenAsforSectionTwoandThree,thesameprinciplesareabidedbywhiledesigningthetest.Examplesarelike:Sitdown.→Dositdown.Shutup.→Doshutup.Comein.→Docomein.Othermoredetailedinformation,see(AppendixVI,AppendixVII,AppendixVIII)Secondly,inSectionOne,multiple-choiceitems,thereareatleastfiveitemsaredesignedtogetridofthestereotypes.Here,stereotypemeansthat,astomostofthemultiple-choiceitemsaimingattestingthegrammarconcerningtheEmphaticPattern,thebestchoicesaremostly“that”oratleastconcerning“that”,sothatstudentsareapttotendtochooseallanswersbasedontheabovecognition.Amongthefiveitems,forfourofthem,thebestchoicesarenotdirectlyinvolving“that”;foroneofthem,itisdeliberatelyaddedtothetestsworkedasthedisturbancetogetoverthestereotypesaswell.Insodoing,ontheonehand,somerepeatingtestitemsareeasilyeliminatedinthetest.Ontheotherhand,thevalidityandreliabilityaretosomeextentguaranteed.Lastbutnotleast,sincethesecondandthethirdsectionsbelongtothesubjectivetestitems,marking26 ChapterFourResearchMethodologyorscoringmakesagreatdifferencetotheresultsofthetest,forwhichsomescoringcriterionaremadeandstrictlyconductedduringtheexperimenttopromotethetestreliabilityaswellasvalidity.Moreover,inordertomakeanequalcriterioninmarking,alltestpaperaremarkedbytheauthor,onepersonforall.Somecriterionsofmarkingarehereforyou:ScoringCriterionforSectionTwo:1.Do,did,doesiscorrectlyutilizedinemphasizingaverbwithoutothermistakes.(scores4)2.Do,did,doesiscorrectlyutilizedinemphasizingaverbwithothermistakes.(scores3)3.Therearesomemistakesbothinusingdo,didanddoesandotherwords.(scores2)4.Do,did,doesisnotcorrectlyutilizedinemphasizingaverb.(scores0)ScoringCriterionforSectionThree:1.Emphaticsentencepatterniscorrectlyutilizedandthereisnoothergrammaticalorspellingerrors.(scores8)2.Emphaticsentencepatterniscorrectlyutilizedandtherearesomeothergrammaticalorspellingerrors.(scores6)3.Therearesomegrammaticalorspellingerrorsbothinemphaticandotherpartofthesentence.(scores4)4.Emphaticsentencepatternisnotcorrectlyutilized.(scores0)Tosumup,asforanytest,toguaranteethehighervalidityandreliabilityistheprerequisiteofpreciseresultsofthetest.Inthestudy,bytakingtheaboveefficientmeasures,thereliabilityofthedatafromtestsisgreatlyassured,whichtosomeextentlaidfirmfoundationsforthevalidityandreliabilityoffinalexperimentalresults.4.3.2QuestionnairesInthecurrentstudy,therearetwodifferentquestionnaires,whichhavebeenadministratedtoallthesubjectsintwoclassesintwodifferentphases.Inthefirstphrase,thePre-questionnaires,named“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchool”arehandedouttobothECandCCbeforethePre-test.Inthesecondphrase,thePost-questionnairesnamed“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchool(fortheinductivegrammarinstructiongroup,EC)”and“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchool(forthedeductivegrammarinstructiongroup,CC)”are27 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplerespectivelyhandedouttothefollowingdayaftertheImmediate-test.Thereare5dimensionsineachofthetwoquestionnaires,andineachdimensionatleast1itemisdesigned.AllquestionnaireitemsaredesignedbaseonLikertScaleof5ranks:stronglyagree,agree,neitheragreenordisagree,disagree,andstronglydisagree,separatelymarkedA,B,C,DandE(QinXiaoqing,2009).Inthepresentquestionnaires,A=stronglyagree,B=agree,C=neitheragreenordisagree,D=disagree,E=stronglydisagree.StudentsarerequiredtoselecttheirresponsesaccordtotheirunderstandingfromA,B,C,DandEaftereachstatement.ThePre-questionnairesaretoinvestigatethestudents’opinionsonthesignificanceofthegrammartotheirEnglishstudy,attitudestothecurrentteachingapproaches,interestsingrammar,thecurrentgrammarteachingmethodsandtheeffectsofthepresentteachingmethod(seeTable4.1).ThePost-questionnairesfortheinductivegrammarinstructiongroup,EC(seeTable4.2)andforthedeductivegrammarinstructiongroup,CC(seetable4.3)arebothtoinvestigateteachers’grammarteachingapproach,students’attitudestowardtheapproach,theeffectsoftheapproachandthewayhowstudentstakepartinthegrammarteachingandlearning.Thelastdimensionincludingoneitemworkedasaneliminationofthevariance.Thereare19itemsin5dimensionsinthePost-questionnaire“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchoolforEC”and13itemsin5dimensionsin“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchoolforCC”.Inthetwoquestionnaires,11itemsaretheidenticalquestions.28 ChapterFourResearchMethodologyInthequestionnaire“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchoolforCC”,thereareonlytwoitemswhichisdifferentfromthequestionnaireforEC.(Moredetails,seeAppendixIIandAppendixIII)SothePre-questionnairesadministratedtobothclassesofECandCCaretoinvestigatestudentsoverallattitudestogrammarandgrammarteaching,whilethePost-questionnairesaretoprobeintothestudentsattitudestoinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesemployedintheexperimentallessons.Byadministratingthequestionnaires,threecrucialobjectivesaretobeobtainedaftertheinvestigation.Inthefirstplace,students’responsestowhataretheirrealattitudestogrammarandgrammarteachingaretofindout.Inthesecondplace,thestudents’attitudestothetwogrammarinstructionapproacharetoseekout.Finally,thechangestakenplaceinstudentstothetwoapproachesbeforeandafterthetreatmentaretobeobtained.4.4MaterialsInthestudy,theEmphaticPatternchosenastheteachingmaterialsislargelyduetothefollowingreasons.Firstofall,thegrammaritemisoneofthemostcommonlyuseditemsinSeniorHighSchool,whichalsofrequentlyappearedinNMET.Secondly,theEmphaticPatternhasappearedevenintextbooksforJuniorSchoolstudents,andinSeniorOne,butthegrammarrulesaredispersedindifferentUnits,evenindifferenttextbooks.InthesecondtermofSeniorTwo,itisthehightimethatmanygrammaticalitemsbetaughtinanintensivemanner.Ofcourse,theEmphaticPattern,oneofthegrammaticalrules,isamong29 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplethem.Atthesametime,“do,did,does”usedtoemphasizetheverbinasentenceisinvolvedinthattheEmphaticPatternisusedtoemphasizeotherpartsofasentenceexceptfortheverb.Asaconsequence,“do,did,does”usedtoemphasizetheverbisincludedasacompensationtomakeupfortheshortcomingoftheEmphaticPattern.InSeniorHighSchool,thegrammaticalrulesoftheEmphaticPatternmainlycontaintwoaspects:oneishowtoemphasizeaverbmeaninginasentence,andtheotherishowtouseemphaticsentencepatterntostressontheotherpartofspeechmeaning.Fortheformer,studentsarerequiredtomastertheuseof“do,doesanddid”toemphasizetheverbmeaninginasentence.Forthelatter,studentsarerequiredtolearntoutilizethesentencestructure“Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclause”tostressontheotherpartofspeechmeaningexceptfortheverbinasentence.Afterthelesson,studentsareexpectedtobeabletounderstandtheemphasisinreadingmaterialsordailyconversationsaswellasemphasizeorstandouthisorhermeaningincommunicationsorwriting.SothislessonwillbecharacterizedofnewrepresentationandgeneralizationoftheEmphaticPattern.Accordingtothetheoryofthedeductionandinduction,theteachingplanshavebeendeliberatelypreparedfortheexperiment,whichisbelievedtobecrucialprocedures.Specially,twosetsoftheteachingplansrepresentthetwogrammarinstructionapproaches,whichhavebeencarriedoutrespectivelyinECandCC.4.5ProceduresInthepresentstudy,theexperimentalproceduresincludethreecrucialphrases.Thefirstphraseisthepreparationsfortheexperiment,wherethePre-testandthePre-questionnaireareadministrated,andtheresultsareanalyzedimmediately.Thesecondphraseisthetreatmentoftheexperiment,inwhichthetargetgrammaritem,theEmphaticPatternwastaughtintwoclasses,ECandCCrespectivelywiththeinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches.Inthethirdphrase,theImmediate-testandthePost-questionnaireareadministratedaftertheteachingofthetargetgrammaritem,theEmphaticPatternwasaccomplished.Andthen,onemonth(fourweeks)later,theDelayed-testwasadministratedeventually.4.5.1Pre-testandthePre-questionnairesInthecurrentexperiment,allthesubjectsarefromthetwoclasses,ClassOne(EC)andClassTwo(CC)ofSeniorTwoamongeighteenclassesofaruralhighschoolinGansuProvince.Inordertomakeacomparisonoftheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachestoteaching30 ChapterFourResearchMethodologycertaingrammaritems,aboveall,nosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesbothingeneralEnglishintegrativelanguageabilityandinthelevelofthetargetgrammaritemsmustbeenguaranteed.Accordingtotheteachersandstudentsoftheschool,theMid-termexamintheschoolisoftenconsideredasoneofthelarge-scaleexamsineachsemester,whichisusuallytreatedveryseriouslyandstrictly.Thepaperisorderedfromanagencyofacertainuniversityofeachexam,whichisbelievedtobeofhighqualityandhasbeenusedinallclassesinvolvingallthesubjectsoftheschoolformanyyears.Yearsofpracticesuggestthatthepaperfromtheagencyhasthestablehighqualitywithbettervalidityandreliability,soitisabletoreflectthestudents’integrativelanguageability.Moreover,theorganizationandadministrationofexamarestrictlyconductedaccordingtothenormalandformaltest—thirtycandidatesinatest-room,onecandidateadesk,sealedpaper,streamlinemarking.Lastly,thepaperofthemid-termexamusuallyconsistoflisteningandreadingcomprehension,cloze,grammaticalgapfilling,correctionandwritingandsoon,whichisabletorepresentthestudents’integrativecompetence.Therefore,analyzingtheresultsoftheexamcanbringussomereliabledatetosomeextent.SotheexperimentdidnotbeginuntiltheMid-termexamoftheschoolhadbeenfinishedinlateOctober,whichistherighttenthweekoftheschoolcalendar.Intheeleventhweek,theresultsoftheexamhadbeenobtainedandenteredSPSS,whichisoneofthePre-testsintheexperiment.Afterthat,thesecondPre-test,whichistoassessstudents’EmphaticPatternskills,andthePre-questionnairesareadministratedintwoclasses.4.5.2TreatmentsAccordingtotheanalysesofthePre-tests,thereisnosignificantdifferencefoundbetweenthetwoclassesinintegrativelanguageabilityandinskillsofthegrammaritemsconcerningtheEmphaticPattern.ThenitisabouttimethatthetwodifferenttreatmentsmaderespectivelytotheECandCC,thatis,forstudentsinEC,thetargetgrammaritem,theEmphaticSentencePatternistaughtwiththeinductivegrammarteachingapproach,while,ontheotherhand,forstudentsinCC,thetargetgrammaritemistaughtwiththedeductivegrammarteachingapproach.Tobespecific,inClassOne(EC),teachingprocedureswillbestrictlyimplementedbasedonfollowingthetheoriesofinductivegrammarteachingapproach.Indetail,eachrulewastaughtinthefollowingsteps:Example→Rule→Practice.Forexample:31 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplePresentation：Dositdown.→Sitdown.Hedidwritetoyoulastweek.→Hewrotetoyoulastweek.Dobecarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.→Becarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.Shedoeslovetalking.→Shelovestalking.Teachershowthesentencesandgetstudentstoobserveandfindthedifferencesoftheeachpair,andthentrytoreporttheirfindings.Teachercouldask“Whatisthefunctiontheboldanditalicwordinthesentence?”toinducetherule:Theverbmeaningwasemphasizedbyaddingauxiliary:do,didanddoes.Step2.However,whentheotherpartsofasentenceareemphasized,aspecialsentencepatternwasused,pleaselookattheflowingsentences.12345TomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheschoolplaygroundwithMike.→ItwasTomwhowasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.Thesubject“Tom”isemphasized,butnototherperson.→ItwasfootballthatTomwasplayingyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.Theobject“football”isemphasized,butnototherballs→ItwasyesterdayatthetimethatTomwasplayingfootballontheplaygroundwithMike.Theadverb“yesterdayatthetime”isemphasized,butnotothertime.→ItwasontheschoolplaygroundthatTomwasplayingfootballwithMike.Theadverb“ontheschoolplayground”isemphasized,butnototherplace.→ItwasMikewho/whomTomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithTheobject“Mike”isemphasized,butnototherperson.Canyoufindanyrule?Howarethedifferentpartsinthesentenceemphasized?Doyoufindanysentencestructure?Whatisit?Byaskingtogetstudentstofindtherule:ShowtheEmphaticPatternform:Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclauseandtrytoexplaintostudentsthatthestructurecanbeusedtoemphaticanypartexceptfortheverb.(Onlyshowthepattern,buttrynottodoanyexplanation.)12345Exercises:ImetLiMingattherailwaystationyesterday.InClassTwo(CC),teachingprocedureswillbestrictlyimplementedbasedonfollowingthetheoriesofinductivegrammarteachingapproach.Indetail,eachrulewastaughtinthefollowingsteps:Rule→32 ChapterFourResearchMethodologyExamples→Practice.Forexample:Presentation：ShowtheEmphaticPatternform:Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclauseandtrytoexplaintostudentsthatthestructurecanbeusedtoemphaticanypartexceptfortheverb,fortheverbmeaningwasemphasizedbyaddingauxiliary:do,didanddoes.Examples:Dositdown.→Sitdown.Hedidwritetoyoulastweek.→Hewrotetoyoulastweek.Dobecarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.→Becarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.Shedoeslovetalking.→Shelovestalking.Teacherexplains:However,whenweemphasizeotherpartsinasentence,emphaticsentencepatternwillbeused.Forexample:12345TomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheschoolplaygroundwithMike.Weusetheemphaticsentence:Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclause→ItwasTomwhowasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.→ItwasfootballthatTomwasplayingyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.→ItwasyesterdayatthetimethatTomwasplayingfootballontheplaygroundwithMike.→ItwasontheschoolplaygroundthatTomwasplayingfootballwithMike.→ItwasMikewho/whomTomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwith1234Exercises:ImetLiMingattherailwaystationyesterday.Thefirstexperimentallesson,teachinggrammarininductiveapproach,wasgivenontheWednesdayeveningwhilethesecondone,teachinggrammarindeductiveapproach,wasgiveontheThursdayeveningofthetwelfthweek.Whywerethelessonsarrangedintheevening?Inthefirstplace,thelessonitselfwilllast45minutesorso,anditisbettertofinishtheimmediate-testassoonasthelessonshavebeencompleted,whichneedsanother20minutes.Moreover,ashortbreakisnecessaryaftera45minuteslesson.Sointotal,tocompletethelessonandthetest,ifonlyafive-minutebreakisoffered,atleast,70minutesmustbeassured.However,generallyspeaking,thereisonlyoneEnglishlessoneachdayatanyseniorhighschool,whichonlylastsatmost45minutes.Secondly,intheschool,itisaroutinethatstudentshaveeveningclassforself-studyfromSundaytoThursday,whichusuallylasts120minutesineachevening.Consideringthetworeasonsmentionedabove,thetwolessonswerebothgivenintheeveningclass.33 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample4.5.3Immediate-test,thePost-questionnairesandDelayed-testJustasdiscussedabove,afterthe45minutesexperimentallesson,studentswereonlyofferedafive-minutebreak,andthen,theywererequiredtofinishtheimmediate-testunderthesupervisionoftheteacher.Onthenextday,theInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchool(fortheinductivegrammarinstructiongroup,EC)andTheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchool(fortheinductivegrammarinstructiongroup,CC),twoPost-questionnaireswereadministrated.Thedelayedtest,whichistocheckthelong-termeffectsofthetwogrammarinstructionapproaches,wasadministratedamonth(fourweeks)later,inDecember,thatis,ontheWednesdayandThursdayoftheseventiethweekoftheschoolcalendar.4.6DatacollectionInthepresentstudy,allscoresfromexamsandtests,resultsfromquestionnairesaretobeinputintoandanalyzedbythesoftwareSPSS13.0.However,theyarenotfinishedatatime,butinthreedifferentphrasesdependingontheprocessanddemandsoftheexperiment.Inthefirstphrase,thePre-testscoreswerecollectedandinputintoSPSSinthefirstplace.Byanalyzingthescoresnosignificantdifferenceisfoundbetweenthetwoclassesinthevariables.Andthen,thefirstquestionnaireswereadministratedandtheresultswerecollectedandanalyzed.Afterwards,thedatacollectionbegantocometoitssecondphrase,thescoresoftheImmediate-testandtheresultsfromthesecondquestionnaireswerecollectedandanalyzed.Inthethirdphrase,thescoresoftheDelayed-testwerecollectedandanalyzedfinally.34 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionsChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionsThedeductiveandtheinductivegrammarteachingapproaches,theyhavetheirownadvantagesanddisadvantages.Inthelonghistoryoflanguageteaching,thedeductiveapproachhadbeenthedominantgrammarteachingapproach,whereasowingtotheinfluenceofthetheoryofstudents’centeredonthemodernteachingpedagogyandthedevelopmentofthelearningtheory,inductiveapproachstartedtodraweducators’attention.Itsoccurrenceisnaturallyrelatedtoitsownadvantagesoverthedeductiveapproach,soinlanguageteachingandlearningprocess,attentionisbeingincreasinglypaidtotheinductivegrammarteachinginstruction.However,asfarasthetwoapproaches,inductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches,whichoneismoreeffectiveinteachingcertaingrammariteminlanguageteachingandlearningclassrooms?Itisstillaquestionthatisexpectingtobefurtherstudybasedontheabovedescription,anditisalsothebigconcernofthestudyandnext,basedontheresultsofthepresentstudy,somemoredetailedinformationandfindingswillbediscussed.AccordingtotheresultsfromtheanalysisofthePre-testscores,thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclasses,ClassOne(EC)andClassTwo(CC),inbothgeneralintegrativeEnglishcompetenceandtheskillsofthetargetgrammar,theEmphaticPattern,whicharethebasisofthefurtherexperiment.Then,afterthetreatmentoftheexperiment,willstudents’grammaticalskillsoftheEmphaticPatternmakeanyprogressandwillECandCCmakethesameprogressornotinthem?Thesetwoquestionswillbeprobedintocarefullyinthechapter.5.1TheresultsanddiscussionsofscoresinPre-testofECandCCInthepresentstudy,therearetwophrasesinthePre-testofbothECandCC.Inthefirstphrase,theschool’sMid-termexamtoassessstudents’integrativelanguageskillsisadministratedandthescoresarecollectedtomakeacomparisonoftheintegrativeEnglishcompetenceofECandCC,whichistreatedaspartofthePre-tests.Inthesecondphrases,theotherPre-testtoassessstudents’grammaticalskillsoftheEmphaticPatternisadministratedandthescoresarecollected.Atlast,thescoresareanalyzedbySPSS13.0andtheresultsareasfollows.35 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleTable5.1GroupStatisticsoftheMid-termtestStd.ErrorClassNMeanStd.DeviationMeanClassOne(EC)8048.1119.4752.177Mid-termtestClassTwo(CC)7848.1715.9341.804Accordingtothetableabove(seeTable5.1),intheMid-termtest,theaveragescore(Mean)ofClassOne(EC)is48.11andClassTwois48.17,anditis0.054(seeTable5.2MeanDifference)lowerthanthatofClassTwo(CC),whichsuggeststhatthereisnoobviousdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesinintegrativeEnglishlanguageability.However,whetherthereisstatisticaldifferenceornotbetweenthemisdependentontheresultsoftheindependentsamplestest.Inthetablebelow(seeTable5.2),Levine’sTestforQualityofVariancesuggeststhatthesignificance(sig.)ofthevarianceis0.080,greaterthan0.05,whichmeansthatthevariancesofthetwogroupsareequal.SoweneedtoobservethedatefromthelineofEqualvariancesassumed.Herethet-valueandMeanDifferencearebothnegativeismainlyduetothemeanoftheECislessthanthatofCCinMid-termexam.Butthesignificance(2-tailed)ofthet-testforEqualityofMeansoftheMid-termtestscoresis0.985isfargreaterthan0.05;thatis,thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesinthevarianceoftheMid-termtestscores.Inaddition,thelowerandupperboundaryof95%ConfidenceIntervaloftheDifferencecontains“0”(-5.654,5.546),whichindicatesthatthedifference-between-meansvaluedidnotdiffersignificantlyaswell.(QinXiaoqing,2003;DarrenGeorge&PaulMallery,2006)Table5.2IndependentSamplesTestoftheMid-termtestLevene"sTestforEqualityoft-testforEqualityofMeansVariances95%ConfidenceSig.MeanStd.ErrorIntervaloftheFSig.tdfDifference(2-tailed)DifferenceDifferenceLowerUpperEqualvariances3.113.080-.019156.985-.0542.835-5.6545.546Mid-termassumedtestEqualvariances-.019151.466.985-.0542.828-5.6415.533notassumedInconclusion,thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroups(EC&CC)inEnglishintegrativelanguagecompetence,inotherwords,theyhavethesimilarlevelofEnglishproficiency.Therefore,thetwoclassescanbechosenasthesubjectsoftheexperiment.Next,thePre-questionnaires“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHigh36 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionsSchool”wereadministratedinturnsinthetwoclassesundertheguideandsupervisionoftheteacherin20minutesonWednesdayoftheeleventhweek.Theresultsareasfollows.OnThursday,thePre-testwasadministratedfirstlyinthegroupofEC,andtheninCCunderthesupervisionoftheteacherwithin20minutes.Theresultsareanalyzedasfollows:Table5.3GroupStatisticsofthePre-testStd.ErrorClassNMeanStd.DeviationMeanClassOne(EC)8051.3324.9692.792Pre-testClassTwo(CC)7853.0322.7662.578TheindependentsamplesttestofthePre-testscoresanalysisindicatesthatthemeanscoresofECis51.33,andCCis53.03(seeTable5.3).ThemeandifferenceofECis1.701lowerthanthatofCC,whichisnotabigdifference(seeTable5.4).Levine’sTestforQualityofVariancesuggeststhatthesignificance(sig.)ofthevarianceis0.436,greaterthan0.05,whichmeansthatthevariancesofthetwogroupsareequal(seeTable4.7).ThedatefromthelineofEqualvariancesassumedshouldbeenobserved.Thesignificance(2-tailed)ofthet-testforEqualityofMeansofthePre-testscoresis0.665isfargreaterthan0.05,thatistosay,thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesinthevarianceofthePre-testscores.Furthermore,thelowerandupperboundaryof95%ConfidenceIntervaloftheDifferencecontains“0”(-9.215,5.814),whichindicatesthatthedifference-between-meansvaluedonotdiffersignificantlyaswell.Table5.4IndependentSamplesTestofthePre-testLevene"sTestforEqualityoft-testforEqualityofMeansVariances95%ConfidenceSig.MeanStd.ErrorIntervaloftheFSig.tdfDifference(2-tailed)DifferenceDifferenceLowerUpperEqualvariances.609.436-.447156.655-1.7013.804-9.2155.814assumedPre-testEqualvariances-.448155.309.655-1.7013.800-9.2065.805notassumedThePre-test,ImmediateandDelayed-testarealltoteststudents’grammarconcerningtheEmphaticPattern.Drawingontheanalysisabove,thetwoclasses,ECandCCdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromeachotherinbothintegrativelanguagecompetenceandskillsaswellasskillsofgrammarconcerningtheEmphaticPattern.Therefore,thetwoclassescanbechosenasthesubjectsoftheexperimentandtheresultswhichwillbeobtainedfromtheImmediate-testandtheDelayed-testwillbecomparable.37 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample5.2TheresultsanddiscussionsofscoresinthreetestsofECInductivegrammarinstructionapproach,whichisstudents-centeredandinterest-provoking,isconsideredtobeeffectivemethodingrammarinstruction.However,inpracticallanguageteachingandlearningcontext,whatistherealeffectofthemethod?Inthepresentstudy,inClassOne(EC),thetargetgrammaritem,theEmphaticPatternhadbeentaughtininductiveinstructionapproach,andthreetestshadbeenadministratedtotesttheeffectofthemethodinteachingtargetgrammar.AllthescoreshadbeenanalyzedviaSPSS,andtheresultsareshowninthefollowingtables.Itisbelievedthatsomedatafromtheexperimentwouldprovideussomereliableevidence.Intheexperiment,thescoresfromthethreetestsgotcomparedbyPairedSamplestTestandtheresultsareshowninthetablebelow(seeTable5.5).Accordingtothetable,afterteachingandlearningthetargetgrammar,themeansofstudents’scoreshadincreasedfrom51.33ofthePre-testtorespectively78.30and73.05,whichindicatesthatstudentshadgotdevelopedintheskillsofthetargetgrammarandinductivegrammarinstructionapproachisaneffectivemethodbothintheshort-termandlong-term.Ontheotherhand,ImmediateandDelayed-testsPairedSamplestTestshowsthatstudents’scoreshavedecreasedfrom78.30oftheImmediate-testto73.05oftheDelayed-test,whichindicatesthatstudents’abilityofthetargetgrammarhastosomeextentdecreasedastimegoesby.Table5.5PairedSamplesStatisticsofECStd.ErrorMeanNStd.DeviationMeanPre-test51.338024.9692.792Pair1Immediate-test78.308019.5782.189Pre-test51.338024.9692.792Pair2Delayed-test73.058018.6842.089Immediate-test78.308019.5782.189Pair3Delayed-test73.058018.6842.089QinXiaoqing(2003)andDarrenGeorge&PaulMallery(2006)claimedthat,inPairedSamplestTest,theroleofthetableofPairedSamplesCorrelationistocheckthecorrelationbetweenthetwovariables.Thetwovariablesoughttorepresenttheresultsfromtheidenticalgroupindifferenttimeortheresultsfromtworelatedgroups.Sothecorrelationshouldbehigher,andthevalueofthesignificanceshouldlower(generallylowerthan0.05),otherwisethePairedSamplestTestwouldnotbesuitable,whereyouhavetoturntoIndependentSamplesttest.Meantime,highcorrelationandlowvalueofthe38 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionssignificancemeansasignificantcorrelationbetweenthetwovariables.ThetableofPairedSamplesCorrelationofEC(seeTable5.6)showsthatthecorrelationsofthetwovariablesPre-test&Immediate-test,Pre-test&Delayed-testandImmediate-test&Delayed-testareseparately0.552,0.615and0.527,whichareallhigher;ontheotherhandthesignificancesareall0.000,whicharemuchlower.Thatmeanssignificantcorrelationsexistbetweenthetwovariablesofthethreepairsabove,indicatingthatPairedSamplestTestisproperlyusedhere.Table5.6PairedSamplesCorrelationsofECNCorrelationSig.Pair1Pre-test&Immediate-test80.552.000Pair2Pre-test&Delayed-test80.615.000Pair3Immediate-test&Delayed-test80.527.000PairedSamplestTestistocomparethemeansofthetwovariableswhichrepresenttheresultsfromtheidenticalgroupindifferenttimeortheresultsfromtworelatedgroups.InthePairedSamplestTestofEC(seeTable5.7),themeandifferencesbetweenthethreepairsarerespectively:-26.975,-21.725and5.250;standardizeddeviationareseparately:21.605,19.966and18.622;andstandardizederrormeanare2.416,2.232and2.082.Threepairs’lowerandupperboundaryofthe95%confidenceintervalofthedifferencearerespectively:-31.783,-22.167;-26.168,-17.282and1.106,9.394,noneofwhichcontains“0”,indicatingthattherearesignificantdifferencesbetweentwovariablesofthethreepairs.Meanwhile,tvaluesareseparately-11.167,-9.732and2.522;degreesofthefreedomareall79.Thesignificancesofthe2-tailedtestarerespectively:0.000,0.000and0.014,whicharealllowerthan0.05,indicatingthattherearesignificantdifferencesbetweentwovariablesofthethreepairsaswell.Table5.7PairedSamplesTestofECPairedDifferences95%ConfidenceStd.Std.IntervalofthetdfSig.(2-tailed)MeanErrorDifferenceDeviationMeanLowerUpperPair1Pre-test-Immediate-test-26.97521.6052.416-31.783-22.167-11.16779.000Pair2Pre-test-Delayed-test-21.72519.9662.232-26.168-17.282-9.73279.000Pair3mediate-test-Delayed-te5.25018.6222.0821.1069.3942.52279.014Accordingtotheanalysisabove,someconclusionscanbemadeasfollows.Firstly,basedontheanalysesofPairedSamplesttestofPre-test&Immediate-testandPre-test&Delayed-test,inductivegrammarinstructionmethodiseffectiveinteachingEmphaticPatterninbothshort-termandlong-term.39 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample5.3TheresultsanddiscussionsofscoresinthreetestsofCCDeductivegrammarinstructionapproachisaconventionalmethodingrammarteaching,whichhadbeendominantingrammarinstructionandhadplayedavitalroleinlanguagestudy.Evenintoday’slanguageteachingandlearningclassroom,itisstillpopularwithmanylanguageteachersandrecommendedbyagreatmanylinguistsandlanguageteachingresearchers,thoughmanyotherteachers,linguistsandlanguageresearchersholdtheoppositepointsofviewtotheapproachduetothepopularityoftheinductivegrammarteachingapproach.Asamatteroffact,forsolongtime,inpracticallanguageteachingandlearningclassroom,thedeductivegrammarinstructionapproachnotonlyhasnotbeeneliminatedbutisnowinanupwardtrendowingtotherationalreflectiontotheapproachandthedrawbacksoftheinductivegrammarapproachbeinggraduallyexposed,indicatingthattheapproachhasitsownirreplaceablevalueandfunctioninlanguageteachingandlearning.Inthepresentstudy,inClassTwo(CC),thetargetgrammaritemhadbeentaughtdeductively,andthethreetestshadbeenadministratedtoassesstheeffectofthemethodinteachingthetargetgrammar.AllthescoreshadbeenanalyzedwiththePairedSamplestTestviaSPSS,andtheresultsareshowninthefollowingtables.Itisbelievedthatitistheotherwaytogettoknowtheapproachfromanotherperspective.ThefollowingthreetablesshowtheresultsofthethreePairedSamplestTest,whicharerespectivelythePre-test&immediate-test,Pre-test&Delayed-testandImmediate-test&Delayed-test.AccordingtothefirsttableofPairedSamplesStatisticsofCC,inthefirsttwopairs,thePre-test&immediate-test,Pre-test&Delayed-test,twomeanscoresonthetwotestsbothriseupfrom53.03ofPre-testto87.18and82.29(seeTable5.8),indicatingthataftertheteachingofEmphaticPattern,students’abilityofthetargetgrammarhasbeengreatlyimprovedbothintherespectiveoftheshort-termandlong-term.Ontheotherhand,ImmediateandDelayed-testsPairedSamplestTestshowsthatstudents’scoreshavefallendownfrom87.18oftheImmediate-testto82.29oftheDelayed-test,whichsuggeststhatstudents’abilityofthetargetgrammarhastosomeextentdecreasedastimegoesby(seeTable5.8).40 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionsTable5.8PairedSamplesStatisticsofCCStd.ErrorMeanNStd.DeviationMeanPre-test53.037822.7662.578Pair1Immediate-test87.18788.277.937Pre-test53.037822.7662.578Pair2Delayed-test82.297812.5051.416Immediate-test87.18788.277.937Pair3Delayed-test82.297812.5051.416ThetableofPairedSamplesCorrelationofEC(seeTable5.9)showsthatthecorrelationsofthetwovariablesPre-test&Immediate-test,Pre-test&Delayed-testandImmediate-test&Delayed-testareseparately0.473,0.472and0.501,whichareallhigher;ontheotherhand,thesignificancesareall0.000,whicharemuchlower.Thegreatervariablecorrelationsandlowermeanssignificancesfirstlymeanthatthereexistsignificantcorrelationsbetweenthetwovariablesofthethreepairs;secondlyindicatethatPairedSamplestTestissuitableusedinthecases.Table5.9PairedSamplesCorrelationsofCCNCorrelationSig.Pair1Pre-test&Immediate-test78.473.000Pair2Pre-test&Delayed-test78.492.000Pair3Immediate-test&Delayed-test78.501.000ThePre-test,theImmediate-testandtheDelayed-testinClassTwo(CC)arethreetestsadministratedindifferenttimeoftheidenticalgroup,sotocomparethemeansofthethreetests’scores,PairedSamplestTestbutnotIndependentSamplettestisappropriateusedhere.Table5.10PairedSamplesTestofCCPairedDifferences95%ConfidenceStd.Std.IntervalofthetdfSig.(2-tailed)MeanErrorDifferenceDeviationMeanLowerUpperPair1Pre-test-Immediate-test-34.15420.2162.289-38.712-29.596-14.92077.000Pair2Pre-test-Delayed-test-29.26919.8612.249-33.747-24.791-13.01577.000Pair3mmediate-test-Delayed-tes4.88511.0081.2462.4037.3663.91977.000InthePairedSamplestTestofCC(seeTable5.10),themeandifferencesbetweenthethreepairsarerespectively:-34.154,-29.269and4.885;standardizeddeviationareseparately:20.216,19.861and11.008;andstandardizederrormeanare2.289,2.249and1.246.Threepairs’lowerandupperboundaryofthe95%41 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleconfidenceintervalofthedifferencearerespectively:-38.712,-29.596;-33.747,-24.791and2.403,7.366,noneofwhichcontains“0”,whichindicatestwovariablesofthethreepairsdodiffersignificantlyfromeachother.Atthesametime,tvaluesareseparately-14.920,-13.015and3.919;degreesofthefreedomareall78-1=77.Thesignificancesofthe2-tailedtestareall0.000,whicharealllowerthan0.05,indicatingthattherearesignificantdifferencesbetweentwovariablesofthethreepairsaswell.Onthebasisoftheanalysisabove,somesimilarconclusionscanbedrawnasfollows.Inthefirstplace,basedontheanalysesofPairedSamplesttestofPre-test&Immediate-testandPre-test&Delayed-test,deductivegrammarinstructionapproachisalsoeffectiveinteachingtargetgrammar,EmphaticPatterninbothshort-termandlong-term.5.4TheresultsanddiscussionsofthecomparisonsofscoresintestsofECandCCUptillnow,wehavediscussedthat,inthepracticeoflanguageteachingandlearning,inductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesareprovedbothtobeeffectiveapproachestogrammarteachinginlanguagestudyclassroom.Ontheotherhand,throughtheanalysisanddiscussionabove,somestatisticalevidenceprovidedtousintheexperimentfurtherprovethatbothapproachesareworkableinteachingthetargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPattern.Sinceitiscertainthattheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesarebotheffectivefromtheperspectiveofthepracticeoflanguageteachingandlearningandtheexperimentalresultsofthepresentstudyelaboratedabove,theitistherighttimeforustoturntothenextaspectofthestudytoprobeintothequestions:Istheinductivegrammarteachingapproachmoreeffectivethanthedeductiveoneinteachingtargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPatternforseniorhighschoolstudentsandIsthelong-termeffectoftheinductivegrammarteachingapproachbetterthanthedeductiveoneinteachingtargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPatternforseniorhighschoolstudents?5.4.1ComparisonsofscoresinImmediate-testofECandCCIstheinductivegrammarteachingapproachmoreeffectivethanthedeductiveoneinteachingtargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPatternforseniorhighschoolstudents?AccordingtotheanalysisofMid-termandPre-testscoresofECandCC,nosignificantdifferenceisfoundinoverallintegrativeEnglishlanguagecompetenceandintheskillsofthetargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPattern.Then,thegrammaritemsaretaughtininductivegrammarinstructionapproachinClassOne(EC),butthesamegrammaritemsaretaughtindeductivegrammarinstructionapproachinClassTwo42 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussions(CC).Afterthat,theimmediate-testsareadministratedintwoclasses,andthetablesbelowaretheresultsoftheIndependentSamplesttestofthescoresofthetwogroupsofECandCC.Table5.11GroupStatisticsoftheImmediate-testStd.ErrorClassNMeanStd.DeviationMeanClassOne(EC)8078.3019.5782.189Immediate-testClassTwo(CC)7887.188.277.937TheindependentsamplesttestoftheImmediate-testscoresanalysisindicatesthatthemeanscoresofECandCCarerespectively78.30and87.18(seeTable5.11).ThemeandifferenceofECis8.879lowerthanthatofCC,whichisobviouslyabiggerdifference.Levine’sTestforQualityofVariancesuggeststhatthesignificance(sig.)ofthevarianceis0.000,greatlowerthan0.05,whichmeansthatthevariancesofthetwogroupsarenotequal(seeTable5.12).SothedatefromtherowofEqualvariancesnotassumedaretobeutilize,whichisinthebottomofthetable.Thesignificance(2-tailed)ofthet-testforEqualityofMeansoftheImmediate-testscores0.000isfarlowerthan0.05,thatistosay,thereexistsasignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesinthevarianceoftheImmediate-testscores.Furthermore,thelowerandupperboundaryof95%ConfidenceIntervaloftheDifferencearebothnegative(-13.600,-4.159),andtheydonotcontains“0”,whichindicatesthatthedifference-between-meansvaluedoesdiffersignificantly.Table5.12IndependentSamplesTestoftheImmediate-testLevene"sTestforEqualityoft-testforEqualityofMeansVariances95%ConfidenceSig.MeanStd.ErrorIntervaloftheFSig.tdfDifference(2-tailed)DifferenceDifferenceLowerUpperEqualvariances29.001.000-3.696156.000-8.8792.402-13.625-4.134assumedImmediate-testEqualvariances-3.729106.934.000-8.8792.381-13.600-4.159notassumedSofar,aconclusioncanbedrawnthattheinductivegrammarteachingapproachisnotbetterthanthedeductiveoneinteachingtargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPatternforseniorhighschoolstudentsinshort-term.Theresultisreallybeyondwhathadexpectedbeforetheexperiment.Forthetimebeing,inductivegrammarinstructionapproachisrecommendedbymanyspecialistsoftheeducationreform.Forsolong,indeductiveteachingmodel,teachershavebeenthecenteroftheclassandteachers’explanationdominated43 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplealmostthewholeclass,butstudentsaremarginalizedandalwaysinthepositionofacceptance,whichisthoughtnottobeneficialtostudents’develop.Inorderforstudents’development,theyshouldbeputinthepositionofthecenteroftheclassandtrytolearnbyself-discovering,whichisbelievedtobemoreeffectivemodeloflearning.However,theresultsoftheexperimentarenotinfavorofthenewly-advocatedapproach,whichisreallyworthusreflectingandfurtherstudy.5.4.2ComparisonsofscoresinDelayed-testofECandCCIsthelong-termeffectoftheinductivegrammarteachingapproachbetterthanthedeductiveoneinteachingtargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPatternforseniorhighschoolstudents?AccordingtotheanalysisPre-testscoresofECandCC,nosignificantdifferenceisfoundinoverallintegrativeEnglishlanguagecompetenceandintheskillsofthetargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPattern.Then,thegrammaritemsaretaughtininductivegrammarinstructionapproachinClassOne(EC),butthesamegrammaritemsaretaughtindeductivegrammarinstructionapproachinClassTwo(CC).Afterthat,theimmediate-testsareadministratedintwoclasses,andthetablesbelowaretheresultsoftheIndependentSamplesttestofthescoresofthetwogroupsofECandCC.Table5.13GroupStatisticsoftheDelayed-testStd.ErrorClassNMeanStd.DeviationMeanClassOne(EC)8073.0518.6842.089Delayed-testClassTwo(CC)7882.2912.5051.416Theindependentsamplesttestofthepre-testscoresanalysisindicatesthatthemeanscoresofECandCCareseparately73.05and82.29(seeTable5.13).ThemeandifferenceofECis9.245lowerthanthatofCC,whichisabigdifference.Levine’sTestforQualityofVariancesuggeststhatthesignificance(sig.)ofthevarianceis0.002,muchlowerthan0.05,whichmeansthatthevariancesofthetwogroupsarenotequal(seeTable5.14).SothedatafromtherowofEqualvariancesnotassumedaretobereferredto.Thesignificance(2-tailed)ofthet-testforEqualityofMeansofthepre-testscoresis0.000isfarlowerthan0.05,thatistosay,therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwoclassesinthevarianceoftheDelayed-testscores.Furthermore,thelowerandupperboundaryof95%ConfidenceIntervaloftheDifferencearebothnegative(-14,235,-4.255),andtheydonotcontains“0”,whichindicatesthatthedifference-between-meansvaluedoesdiffersignificantly.44 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionsTable5.14IndependentSamplesTestoftheDelayed-testLevene"sTestforEqualityoft-testforEqualityofMeansVariances95%ConfidenceMeanIntervaloftheSig.Std.ErrorFSig.tdfDifferencDifference(2-tailed)DifferenceeLowerUpperEqualvariances9.893.002-3.646156.000-9.2452.536-14.254-4.236Delayed-assumedtestEqualvariances-3.663138.311.000-9.2452.524-14.235-4.255notassumedDrawingontheanalysesabove,aconclusionmaybedrawnthattheresultsaresimilartothecomparisonoftheDelayed-testofECandCC.Thatistosay,thedeductivegrammarteachingapproachisbetterthantheinductiveoneinteachingtargetgrammaritems,theEmphaticPatternforseniorhighschoolstudentsinlong-term.5.4.3ComparisonsofscoresinPre-test,Immediate-testandDelayed-testofECandCCAccordingtotheaboveanalyses,intheMidterm-testandPre-test,therereallyexistthemeandifferencesbetweenECandCC,buttheyarenotsignificantlydifferent.However,intheImmediate-testandDelayed-test,significantdifferencesofthemeanscoresdoexistbetweenECandCCaccordingtotheanalysesoftheresultsoftheindependentsamplesttest.Fromanotherperspective(seeTable5.15),inthesameway,itisobviousthedifferencesaretherebetweenPre-testandImmediate-testandbetweenPre-testandDelayed-testmeanscores.AccordingtothegradientofthelinesegmentfromthepointofmeanscoreofPre-testtoImmediate-testandfromPre-testtoDelayed-testofthetwoclasses,boththegradientofthelinesegmentfromthepointofmeanscoreofPre-testtoImmediate-testandfromPre-testtoDelayed-testoftheClassTwo(CC)arebiggerthanthatoftheClassOne(EC),whichindicatethattheprogressmadebyClassTwoisbiggerthanthatbyClassOne.Thatistosay,deductivegrammarinstructionapproachismoreeffectivethaninductiveoneinteachinggrammaritem,theEmphaticPatterntoseniorhighschoolstudents.Actually,inbothinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstruction,aslongastheysetmasteryofthegrammaritemastheiraims,studentshavetoconstructtheirownknowledgebythemselves.Whatteachersdoinclassistoprovidestudentswithscaffold,whichisusedtobringconvenienceforstudentstoformtheirownknowledgesystem,thoughtheteachingapproachesteachersadoptedarevarious.Whatmattersmostinthepresentstudyismaybethat,tosomeextent,anapproachusedinclassismuchmorefrequently45 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplemighttakegreatadvantagesovertheotherintheeffectofgrammarlearning.Table5.15TheResultsofComparisionsofTestsofClassOne(EC)andClassTwo(CC)ClassOneClassTwo87.1882.2953.0348.1778.373.0548.1151.33Midterm-testPre-testImmediate-Delayed-testtest5.5TheresultsanddiscussionsofPre-questionnairesofECandCCAsismentionedaboveinChapterFour,thePre-questionnairesaretoinvestigatestudents’opinionsonthesignificanceofthegrammartotheirEnglishstudy,attitudestothecurrentteachingapproaches,interestsingrammar,thecurrentgrammarteachingmethodsandtheeffectsofthepresentteachingmethod,whichincludefivedimensions.Alldataarecollectedandanalyzedassoonasthequestionnairesarefinished.Table5.16“TheResultsofthePre-questionnairesinECandCC”displaystheresultsofthestatistics,inwhichA=stronglyagree,B=agree,C=neitheragreenordisagree,D=disagree,andE=stronglydisagree,thenumbersinthetablerepresentthepercentageofthestudentswhochoosetheanswersfromA,B,C,DandE.Atthesametime,allthoseanswers,whichwereconvertedintoA=stronglyagree=1,B=agree=2,C=neitheragreenordisagree=3,D=disagree=4,andE=stronglydisagree=5,hadbeenanalyzedbySPSS13.0withtheindependentsamplesttest,andtheresultsareshowedinTable5.17andTable5.18.AccordingtoTable5.16,Dimension1istoinvestigatestudents’opinionsonthesignificanceofthegrammartotheirEnglishstudy,inwhichtwoquestionsareincluded.Q1isaboutstudents’opinionsontheimportanceofthegrammartotheirEnglishstudy,inClassOne,studentswhochooseA(=stronglyagree)andB(=agree)arerespectively38.3%and49.4%,inClassTwo,are35.4%and51.9%(seeTable5.16).StudentswhochooseAandBtogetherareupto87.7%and87.3%,whichindicatesthatmoststudentsthinkgrammarisimportanttotheirEnglishstudy.Q2is“Iwoulddosomepre-learningbeforelearningthenewgrammaticalitems”,towhichtheanswersAandBintotalinClassOneis27.2%andinClassTwois46 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussions31.6%,whichindicatethatstudentsintwoclassesbothlacklearningautonomy.Dimension2isaboutthewaytheteachertaughtgrammar,inwhichQ3isaboutteachinginductivelyandQ5isaboutteachingdeductively.StudentswhochooseAandBtoQ3inClassOneis77.8%andinClassTwois81%whiletoQ5inClassOneis75.3%andinClassTwois77.2%.HerethereisaninterestingphenomenonthatinClassOne,studentswhostronglyagreeandwhoagreetoteachgrammarinductivelytogetherare77.8%.Inthemeantime,studentsinClassOnewhostronglyagreeandagreetoteachgrammardeductivelyareupto75.3%.Moreover,thesamephenomenonappearsinQ21andQ22,whicharecontradictory.OtherquestionsaboutthewaytheteachertaughtgrammarinDimension2,bothin47 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleClassOneandTwostudentswhochooseAandBintotalaremorethan60%.Asamatteroffact,theaboveanalysesindicatethatstudentsprefertoadapttothewaytheteachertaughtgrammarratherthandistinguishthem,whichmeansthatstudentsaremorelikelytoagreetowhateverapproachteacheradoptedinclass.Dimension3istoinvestigatetheeffectsofthecurrentteachingmethod,inwhichthereare7questions.Students’answersaremostlyC(neitheragreenordisagree)andD(disagree)inbothECandCC(moredetails,Table5.16),whichmeansmoststudentsneitheragreenordisagreeordisagreewitheffectsofthecurrentgrammarteachingmethods,anditimpliesthattheeffectsofthegrammarinstructionarenotasgoodaswhatstudentsexpect.Dimension4andDimension5arerespectivelyaboutthestudents’attitudestotheteachingmethodandthestudents’interestingrammar.AccordingtoTable5.16,ontheonehand,studentswhothinkteachersattachimportancetogrammarteachinginECandCCare65.5%and72.2;ontheotherhand,studentswhoareinterestedingrammarlearninginECandCCare40.75and38%.Basedontheaboveanalyses,neitherinductivenordeductivegrammarinstructionapproachisabletomeetstudents’needstolearngrammarinterestinglyandeffectively.Intheperspectiveofthecomparisonofthetwoclassesaboutthesameaimsoftheinvestigation,somefindingsandresultsaredemonstratedinTable5.17andTable5.18.IndependentSamplesTestforPre-questionnairesofECandCCshowsthat,among22itemsorquestions,thereisonlyone,Q15“Ithinkthatgrammarlearningisboring”,towhichtheanswersfromthestudentsinECandCCdodifferfromeachothersignificantly.Ofthequestion,Levine’sTestforQualityofVariancesuggeststhatthesignificance(sig.)ofthevarianceis0.146,greaterthan0.05,whichmeansthatthevariancesofthetwogroupsareequal(seeTable5.18).ThedatefromthelineofEqualvariancesassumedistoreferto.Thesignificance(2-tailed)ofthet-testforEqualityofMeansofscoresis0.028islessthan0.05,thatistosay,thereissignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesinthevarianceofthescores.Furthermore,thelowerandupperboundaryof95%ConfidenceIntervaloftheDifferencedoesnotcontain“0”(0.04185,0.71008),whichindicatesthatthedifference-between-meansvaluedodiffersignificantlyaswell.AccordingtotheTable5.16,studentswhostronglyagreeandwhoareagreethatgrammarlearningisboringintotalarerespectivelyis35.8%inECand55.4%inCC,whichindicatesthatinECtherearemorewhoareinterestedingrammarlearning.Therestofthe21items,IndependentSamplesTestforPre-questionnairesofECandCCindicatesthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesinthevarianceofthescores,whichmeansthat48 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionsTable5.17GroupStatisticsofPre-questionnairesofECandCCclassNMeanStd.DeviationStd.ErrorMeanClassOne(EC)801.8000.86273.09646an1ClassTwo(CC)781.8077.80675.09135ClassOne(EC)803.2500.94802.10599an2ClassTwo(CC)783.1026.90582.10256ClassOne(EC)802.1000.94935.10614an3ClassTwo(CC)781.9615.67309.07621ClassOne(EC)802.66251.07849.12058an4ClassTwo(CC)782.89741.00116.11336ClassOne(EC)802.0375.94726.10591an5ClassTwo(CC)771.9221.94265.10742ClassOne(EC)793.4051.94080.10585an6ClassTwo(CC)783.6154.87134.09866ClassOne(EC)802.3250.89690.10028an7ClassTwo(CC)782.1026.78276.08863ClassOne(EC)803.0250.98051.10962an8ClassTwo(CC)783.0897.87068.09858ClassOne(EC)802.1500.74799.08363an9ClassTwo(CC)782.2436.85563.09688ClassOne(EC)803.21251.03964.11624an10ClassTwo(CC)773.2208.94065.10720ClassOne(EC)802.2875.88866.09936an11ClassTwo(CC)782.0641.81128.09186ClassOne(EC)802.8000.95996.10733an12ClassTwo(CC)772.9351.92249.10513ClassOne(EC)802.7500.97435.10894an13ClassTwo(CC)753.33334.31632.49841ClassOne(EC)803.0625.91877.10272an14ClassTwo(CC)783.46152.28883.25916ClassOne(EC)802.83751.01188.11313an15ClassTwo(CC)782.46151.11300.12602ClassOne(EC)803.2000.93321.10434an16ClassTwo(CC)783.26921.00225.11348ClassOne(EC)802.3250.88267.09869an17ClassTwo(CC)782.1154.82148.09301ClassOne(EC)803.0875.94392.10553an18ClassTwo(CC)782.9487.89584.10143ClassOne(EC)802.3625.94459.10561an19ClassTwo(CC)772.2078.93665.10674ClassOne(EC)802.91251.02121.11418an20ClassTwo(CC)782.8974.90582.10256ClassOne(EC)802.3875.93448.10448an21ClassTwo(CC)782.39741.01085.11446ClassOne(EC)802.3625.98397.11001an22ClassTwo(CC)782.2821.95206.1078049 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplestudents’opinionsontheimportanceofthegrammartotheirEnglishlearning,students’attitudestothe50 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionscurrentteachingapproaches,interestsingrammar,thecurrentgrammarteachingapproachesandtheeffectsofthepresentteachingmethodinECandCCarenotdifferentfromeachothermuch.Allinall,accordingtotheresultsofanalysesofthePre-questionnairesinECandCCandtheIndependentSamplesTestforPre-questionnairesofECandCC,students’opinionsonthesignificanceofthegrammartotheirEnglishstudy,attitudestothecurrentteachingapproaches,thecurrentgrammarteachingmethodsandtheeffectsofthepresentteachingmethodinECandCCarequitesimilar.TheonlydifferenceisthatstudentswhofeelgrammarlearningisboringinECarelessthanthatinCC.Moreover,basedonthetheoryofconstructivismandlearningbydiscoveringandlearningbyacceptanceaswellasthecharacteristicsofinductiveinstruction,inductivegrammarinstructionapproachowingtoitslearner-centeredandinterest-provokingadvantagesshouldbemoreeffectiveingrammarlearningandteaching.However,theanalysesoftheresultsofthetestsindicatethatstudentsinECmakelessprogressthanthatinCC.Thissuggeststhatgrammarteachingandlearningiscomplicatedworkbothforteachersandlearners.5.6TheresultsanddiscussionsofPost-questionnairesofECandCCThePost-questionnairesarebothtoinvestigateteachers’grammarteachingapproach,students’attitudestowardtheapproach,effectsoftheapproach,andthewayhowstudentstakepartinthegrammarteachingandlearning.51 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleTable5.19showsthestatisticalresultsofthePost-questionnairescollectedandanalyzedbySPSS13.0,inwhichboththeresultsof“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchoolforEC”and“TheInvestigationonGrammarandGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchoolforCC”hadbeenputinthesametable.SincetheinvestigationforECincludes19questions/itemsandforCC13questionsandtheyinclude11identicalitems,puttingthetworesultsinthesametableisbeneficialtofurthercomparisons.Dimension1inPost-questionnaireistoprobeintotheroughdescriptionofthestepstheteacher52 ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussionsadopted.Inthestudy,inClassOneasEC,thetargetgrammar,theEmphaticPatternistaughtinductively.AccordingTable5.19,of5questions/itemsstudentswhochooseA(stronglyagree)andwhochooseB(agree)togetherarerespectively90%,85.1%，28.8%,73.8%and65.0%.Thethirdismuchlower,actuallythequestionisaboutgroupcooperationgrammarlearning,othersareallaboutthewaysofgrammarteaching.ClassTwoasCC,intheclass,thetargetgrammaristaughtdeductivelyandof2questionsonthewaysofgrammarteaching,60.2%and51.3%.Obviously,inductivegrammarinstructioninEChasbeenmorepopularamongthestudentsthandeductiveoneinCC.Dimension2isaboutstudents’attitudestowardthegrammarteachingapproachtheteacheremployedinclass,whichincludes2questions.Q9is“Ihavegottoknowtheteacher’sgrammarteachingmethod”andQ16is“Iamnotinterestedinteacher’sgrammarteachingmethod”StudentsinECwhostronglyagreeandwhoagreetogetherare61.3%toQ9and10.0%toQ16whileinCC47.5%and5.1%,whichindicates,ontheonehand,morestudentsgettoacceptinductiveteachingcomparedtodeductiveone;ontheotherhand,morestudentsareinterestedininductivegrammarinstructionthandeductiveone.Dimension3istolookintotheeffectsoftheinductiveapproachinECanddeductiveoneinCC,whichcontains6questions,ofwhich,oneisaboutinductiveteachingapproachforECandthefifthoneisnegativequestion“Istilldonotunderstandthetargetgrammar”.Studentswhochoosestronglyagreeandwhoagreetogetherarerespectively:52.5%,27.5%,15%,21.3%inECand40.2%andinCC28.2%,14.1%,7.7%,7.7%and47.4%.Firstofall,itimpliesthattheeffectsofthegrammarteachingarenotideal;andstudentslearnnotmuchingrammarteachingclass.Inthesecondplace,inductivegrammarteachingapproachismoreeffectiveinstudents’opinions.ItisdemonstratedinQ19“Ifeelthatfindingoutthegrammaticalrulesbymyselfismorebeneficialformetounderstandthetargetgrammaticalitems”thatstudentswhostronglyagreeandagreetogetherwiththestatementis67.5%.Dimension4istoinvestigatehowthestudentstookapartinthegrammarinstruction.AccordingtotheTable5.19,itisobviousthatstudentsinECaremoreactive,andpreferabletogetparticipatedandmakeeffortingrammarlearningclass.Dimension5istoeliminatethefactorswhichinfluencetheexperimentalresults,andtheyarenotdifferentmuchaccordingtotheresultsoftheinvestigation,55%and52.6%.Inconclusion,accordingtothePost-questionnairesforECandCConstudents’attitudestowardsgrammarandgrammarteachingapproaches,interestinthewaytheteachtaughtgrammarandhowtoparticipateinthegrammarclass,inductivegrammarinstructionapproachinECtakesmoreadvantagesover53 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplethedeductiveoneinCC.However,drawingontheachievements’analysesinthetests,deductivegrammarteachingismoreeffective.Whyaretheresultslikethis?Firstofall,accordingtotheinterviewtotheteacherwhohadtheexperimentallessonsandthestudentsinthetwoclasses,mostly,grammarwastaughtdeductivelyinbothECandCC,whichmaybeoneofthereasonsofthepresentresults.Tobespecific,itisinevitablethatitisabitboringthatthesameapproachisusedfortoolong.Atthesametime,inductivegrammarinstructionapproachisrarelyemployedintwoclasses.Soitisfreshforstudents,andofcourseitcouldarousestudents’interestandparticipationinclasssothatstudentsfeelitiseffective.Inthesecondplace,asmatteroffact,accordingtotheoryofconstructivismandlearningbydiscoveringandlearningbyacceptanceaswellasthecharacteristicsofinductiveinstruction,deductivegrammarinstructionapproach,inductiveinstructionshouldbemoreeffective.However,thesituationsofgrammarteachingaremorevariousinclassrooms.Itismorelikelythatwhichoneoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesiscloselyrelatedtothetargetgrammar.Indetails,inductiveinstructionmaybelesseffectiveinteachingtheEmphaticPattern,butmoreeffectiveinteachingtheAttributiveClause.Moreover,learningbyacceptanceandconcerningdeductivegrammarinstructionapproachhasalsoitsadvantages.54 ChapterSixConclusionsChapterSixConclusions6.1MajorfindingsInthepresentstudy,thepurposeistomakeacomparisonoftheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachestoteachingcertaingrammaritemstoseniorhighschoolstudents.Inordertoprobeintothequestionandobtainsomevaluablefindings,theEmphaticPatternischosenasthetargetgrammaritem.AccordingtotheanalysisoftheresultofthePre-test,thetwoclasses,ECandCCdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromeachotherinintegrativelanguagecompetenceandskillsaswellasskillsofgrammarconcerningtheEmphaticPattern.Afterthetreatmentoftheexperiment,thecomparisonsoftheresultsoftheImmediate-testandtheDelayed-testwiththePre-testindicatethatbothinECandCCtheprogresshasbemadeinskillsoftheEmphaticPattern,however,byanalyzingscoresofthetestsviaSPSS13.0,theprogressmadeintwoclassedissignificantlydifferent.Soconclusionsmaybemadeasfollows.Inthefirstplace,bycomparingandanalyzingthescoresofthePre-testandImmediate-test,Pre-testandDelayedtestofECandCC,thestatisticalresultsindicatethebothinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachesareeffectiveapproachestoteachingtheEmphaticPattern.Inthesecondplace,aftercomparingandanalyzingthescoresoftheImmediate-testsofECandCC,DelayedtestsofECandCC,thestatisticalresultssuggestthat:Firstly,theshort-termeffectofthedeductivegrammarteachingapproachisbetterthantheinductiveoneinteachingcertaingrammaritem,theEmphaticPatterntoseniorhighschoolstudents.Secondly,thelong-termeffectofthedeductivegrammarteachingapproachisbetterthantheinductiveoneinteachingcertaingrammaritem,theEmphaticPatterntoseniorhighschoolstudentsaswell.Atthesametime,theanalysesoftheresultsofthePre-questionnaireandthePost-questionnaireprovidefurtherinformationaboutthecomparisonoftheeffectsofthetwogrammarteachingapproaches.6.2ImplicationsThisstudyistocomparetheeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachestoteachingcertaingrammaritems,andtheEmphaticPatternischosenasthematerial.Theanalysesofthescoresofthethreetestsshowbothinductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachescanimprovestudents’performanceintests,andcomparatively,inductivegrammarinstructionapproachismoreeffectivethandeductiveonebothinshort-termandlong-terminteachinggrammaritem,theEmphatic55 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplePattern.Theconclusionsarecompletelybeyondwhathadexpectedbeforetheexperiment.Inductivegrammarinstructionapproach,whichhasbeennewlyrecommendedandadvocatedinrecentdecades,isconsideredtobemoreeffectivebymanylanguageresearchersandteacherduetoitsstudents-centered,problem-solvingandself-discoveringaswellasotheradvantageouscharacteristics.However,thefinalresultsinthepresentstudytellusthatinlanguageteachingandlearningclassroom,situationsarecomplicated.Sofar,twosignificantimplicationsinthepresentstudymustbeinterpretedhere.Firstofall,completelydenyingorexcludingandresistingtraditionalmethodswhileputtingforwardnewrecommendedonesisnotrighteitherinclassroomorinlife.Secondly,thecourse,experiencesandreflectionofthepresentstudysuggestthattomastergrammarandobtaingrammarskills,andbothinductiveanddeductivegrammarapproachesareimportantandnecessary.Inlanguageteachingandlearningclassrooms,someimportantimplicationsmaybeobtainedasfollows.Tobeginwith,undoubtedly,inductiveanddeductivegrammarinstructionapproachbothhavetheiradvantagesanddisadvantagesasisdiscussedinChapterTwo.Thus,itisbettertoselectoneofthetwoapproachesaccordingtothespecificcharacteristicsofthetargetgrammaticalitemaswellasotherfactors.Ingrammarteachingandlearning,usuallylargequantitiesofdiscretegrammarrulesorpointsarecommonlyinvolvedinthesyllabusorthecurriculum.Sotheremustbesomegrammaritems,forwhichtheinductivegrammarinstructionapproachismoresuitableandeffectiveandsomeothers,forwhichthedeductiveoneismoreworkableandpreferable.Therefore,asateacher,learntogettoknowhowtomakeachoicewillbeatechniqueaswellasanart.Somelanguageresearcherspointedoutthatthecomplexityanddifficultyofthegrammaritemcanbeacriterionforchoosingwhichonethetwoapproaches.Tobespecific,astorelativelycomplexanddifficultgrammaritems,thedeductiveapproachmaybemoreeffective.IftheEmphaticPatternisnotthatdifficultorcomplex,then,theresultsofthepresentexperimentcoincidentlydemonstratedtheviewpoint.Onthecontrary,ifthegrammaritemsareabiteasyforlearns,theinductiveonemaybemorebeneficialtolearners.Ofcourse,hereitisforreferenceonly.Secondly,sinceinductiveanddeductivegrammarapproachesseparatelyhavetheirownmeritsanddemerits,combiningthetwoapproacheswhileteachingthespecificgrammaticalitemonthebasisofitsfeaturestomaketheeffectofgrammarteachinguptoitsextremethenwouldbebetterthanonlyoneofthe56 ChapterSixConclusionstwoisalwaysemployed.Although,forthetimebeing,theresearchersonhowtointegratethetwoapproacheswhileteachingacertaingrammaticalitemarerare,stillitisfeasibletomakesomeattempts.Forexample,whenagoodmanyexampleshadbeenpresentedtolearners,butduetomanyreasons,minutesorevenmoreminuteshavebeenconsumed,noonecouldinduceanyrule.Inthiscase,towaitonisonlytime-wasting,eithersomewordstoenlightenorimplyisessentialordirectlytellthemtheruleisbrightdecision.Uptothedegree,althoughitseemedasifthelessonhasgonebacktothebeginningofthedeductiveapproaches,yetsomethingimportanthashappenedtothelearners.Learners’interestsandconsciousnesshavebeenactivated,someprocessingworkhasbeendoneandevensomepreviousknowledgehasbeenrecalledandutilized,eventually,theyareabouttodrawaconclusion.Attherighttime,eventhoughtheruleisutteredbytheteacher,ithasbeenquitedifferentfromtherulewhichwastoldbeforetheexamples.Andthen,learners,withtherule,returntoexampleagaintocheckwhatlearned.Atlast,somepracticesarefollowed.Whenponderingontheexample,itisnotdifficulttofindthat,duringthecourse,inducinganddeducinghavebeenunconsciouslyintegrated.So,combinationofthetwoapproachesmaybeanewtopic,butitdeservesmakingattemptsagainandagain.Thirdly,nomatterwhatapproachesyouwouldliketoselectingrammarteaching,attachingmuchimportancetolearners’needsandlearningstylesareofgreatsignificance,forgenerallyspeaking,howmuchthegrammarinstructionapproachcatertothelearners’needsandlearningstyles,toalargeextent,decideshowmuchsuccessfultheteachingwillbe.InEnglishteachingandlearning,payingmuchattentiontoteachingapproachesandrunningafterefficiencyareunalterableprinciples,butitisjustonesideofacoin.Thatis,itistheonlyconsiderationintheperspectivesofteachingandteacher,however,attachingimportancetowhylearnersaspiretolearnandhowtheycanlearneffectivelyshouldbemorecrucialtohighefficiencyoflearningintheperspectivesoflearningandlearner.Iflearnersarepreferabletodeductivegrammarinstructionapproaches,andtheirlearningstylesareappropriatefortheapproachtoo,then,theywouldlearnmoreefficiently,orelse,justchoosetheinductiveone.So,gettingtoknowstudents’needsandlearningstyles,andthenfurthertodeterminewhichapproachistobeappliedmaybebetterthanonlyentangledwithwhichonetochoose.57 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample6.3LimitationsItisnaturalthatthereexistsomelimitationsinastudy.Afterall,someconstraintsandobstaclesarealwaystherearound.Inthepresentstudy,thougheveryefforthasbeenmaketoguaranteetheveracity,thereliabilityaswellasthepopularizationoftheresultsoftheexperiment,yetowingtovariousreasons,therearestillmanylimitations,Forastart,onlyonegrammaritem,theEmphaticPatternisutilizedasthetargetgrammaritemintheexperiment,whichmerelyprovideustheevidencethatdeductivegrammarinstructionapproachismoreeffectivethantheinductiveonetoteachingEmphaticPatternbothforashort-termandlong-term.Becauseofthis,thepopularizingvalueoftheresultsintheexperimentinawayisabitlimited.Next,boththequestionnairesandthethreetestsneedtobefurtherimprovedsothatthemorepreciseresultsarefoundout.Moreover,interviewstobothlearnersandteachersshouldbeinvolvedintheexperimentsothatmoredeepanddetailedfindingsareobtained.Lastly,thewholeexperimentperiodlastsforonlysixweeks,whichisrelativelyabitshortformeasuringtheeffectofateachingapproach.Itisbettertomakeitlongerthanonesemester,oneyearormore.6.4.SuggestionsforthefurtherstudyAstoanyexperiment,itisinevitableandnaturalthatsomepitiesanddrawbacksareleftbehindafterthecompletionowingtodiversecontrollableoruncontrollablefactors.However,itisthepitiesandthedrawbacksinpreviousexperimentthatprovideusimportantfoundationsandpreciousexperienceforthefuturemoreadvancedanddevelopedexperiments.Inthecurrentexperiment,implicationsforthefurtherstudyareasfollows.Tostartwith,differentsubjectsarechosentodothesameexperiment.Forexample,inthecurrentstudy,thesubjectsarefromaruralSeniorHighSchool.ChoosingthesubjectsfromacitySeniorHighSchooltodotheidenticalexperiment,forfurthercomparingtheeffectsofthetwoapproachesisquitenecessaryandvaluable.Secondly,asismentionedabove,onetargetgrammaritemandsixweekslongexperimenttimeareneitherenoughtoensuremuchmorereliableresults.Soitisbettertoadopttwoorthree,evenmoreifnecessary,targetgrammaritemsandlongerexperimentperiod,forinstance,onesemesterorayear,whichwouldsurelypromotetheresultofthepresentstudy.58 ChapterSixConclusionsThirdly,inthepresentstudy,theeffectsoftheinductiveanddeductivegrammarapproachesarecompared.Forthefurtherstudy,anothergroupinwhichbothapproachesareappliedcanbeaddedtotheexperiment,andyoucancallitcombinationgroup.Therefore,theeffectsofthethreeapproachescanbecomparedintheexperiment,andmorevaluablefindingscanbeobtainedeventually.Lastbutnotleast,questionnairesandtestsaretwoindispensablemeasurementsintheexperiment,buttheybothneedtobeimprovedsothatmorepreciseandreliableresultscanbeobtained.Asforquestionnaires,somerevisionsshouldbemadesothatmorechangesforthesubjectsbeforeandafterthetreatmentcanbeperceived.Ifso,moredeepreasonscanbefoundforwhytheresultsarelikethis.Asfortests,foronething,theselectionofthetypeofitem,themanagementofthenumberofitemandtheestablishmentofthescoringcriterionallneedtobefurtherconsidered;foranother,howtoguaranteetheconsistencyanduniformityofthePre-test,Immediate-testandDelayed-testisanotherissuetogetpromoted.Asamatteroffact,thereareotherimplicationsofthepresentstudy,buthereitisunnecessarytoenumerateonebyone.Atlast,sincerelyhopeallthoseherementionedareofgreatsignificanceforthefuturefurtherstudy.59 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleBibliographyAndrieKontozi&EleniKouratou,InductiveandDeductivemethodsofteaching[W].fromhttp://www.academia.edu/3481510/Inductive_and_Deductive_methods_of_teachingCameE.Haight,CarolHerron,Steven.P.Cole,(2007),TheEffectsofDeductiveandGuidedInductiveInstructionalApproachesontheLearningofGrammarintheElementaryForeignLanguageCollegeClassroom,ForeignLanguageTeachingAnnals[J].VOI,40,NO.2,288-301.DavidP.Ausubel,(1961),LearningbyDiscovery:RationaleandMystiqueNASSPBulletin[J].Dec,196145:18-60.DarrenGeorge&PaulMallery,(2006),SPSSforWindowsStep-by-Step:ASimpleGuideandReference,13.0Update[M].PearsonEducationAsiaLTD.EliHinkel&SandraFotos,(2001),FromTheorytoPractice:ATeacher’sViewinNewPerspectivesonGrammarTeachinginSecondLanguageClassroom,ESLandAppliedLinguisticsProfessionalSeries[C].LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.EllisR.(2006),CurrentIssuesintheTeachingofGrammar:AnSLAPerspectiveTesolQuarterly[J].Vol.85EllisR.(2010),LearningandTeachingGrammar[M]ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress,2010.FarzadMahootian&TimothyE.Eastman,(2009),ComplementaryFrameworksofScientificInquiry:Hypothetico-Deductive,Hypothetico-Inductive,andObservational-Inductive,WorldFutures:TheJournalofNewParadigmResearch[J].65:1,61-75G.Jean&D.Simard,(2013),Deductiveversusinductivegrammarinstruction:Investigatingpossiblerelationshipsbetweengains,preferencesandlearningstyles,System[J]41,1023-1042.GeoffThompson,(1996),Somemisconceptionsaboutcommunicativelanguageteaching,ELTJournal[J].50/1,9-16.HelenMotha,(2013),TheEffectofDeductiveandInductiveLearningStrategiesonLanguageAcquisition,[MD]July2013TilburgUniversity,Tilburg.HosseinNassajiandJunTian,(2010),CollaborativeandIndividualOutputTasksandTheirEffectsonLearning,LanguageTeachingResearch,[J].14(4),397–419.JackC.RichardsandTheodoreS.Rodgers,(2000),ApproachesandMethodsinLanguageTeaching[M],CambridgeUniversityPress.60 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleJ.Burgess,S.Etherington(2002)System[J].30,433–458.JacquelineGollin(1998),KeyconceptsinELT,ELTJournal[J].52/1,88-89.Li-JenKuo,TingDongandXiaoyingWu,MayJadallah,RichardC.Anderson,KimNguyen-Jahiel,BrianW.Miller,Il-HeeKim,(2011),InfluenceofaTeacher"sScaffoldingMovesDuringChild-LedSmall-GroupDiscussions,AmericanEducationalResearchJournal[J].February2011,Vol.48,No.1,pp.194–230.MasahiroTakimoto,(2008),TheEffectsofDeductiveandInductiveInstructionontheDevelopmentofLanguageLearners’PragmaticCompetence,TheModernLanguageJournal[J].92,369-387.NorikoNagata,(1997),AnExperimentalComparisonofDeductiveandInductiveFeedbackGeneratedbyaSimpleParse,System[J].Vol.25,No.4,pp.515-534.NinaSpada,(2007),CommunicativeLanguageTeaching:CurrentStatusandFutureProspectsInternationalHandbookofEnglishLanguageTeaching,JimCummins&ChrisDavisonVolume15,2007,pp271-288Rogoff,B.,&Wertsch,J.V.(Eds.),(1984),Newdirectionsforchilddevelopment:No.23.Children’slearninginthe‘‘zoneofproximaldevelopment.’’SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.RonSheen(2002)‘Focusonform’and‘focusonforms’ELTJournal,[J]56/3303-305.RosemaryErlam,(2003),TheEffectsofDeductiveandInductiveInstructionontheAcquisitionofDirectObjectPronounsinFrenchasaSecondLanguage,TheModernLanguageJournal[J].87,p:242-261SamuelS.Dubin,MorrisOkun,(1973),ImplicationsofLearningTheoriesforAdultInstruction,AdultInstructionQuarterly,[J]24/3,3-21.Se´verineVogel,CarolHerron,StevenP.Cole,HollyYork,(2011),EffectivenessofaGuidedInductiveVersusaDeductiveApproachontheLearningofGrammarintheIntermediate-LevelCollegeFrenchClassroom,ForeignLanguageTeachingAnnal,[J].VOI,.44,NO.2,353-381..https://www.teyl-j.org/service/course_E/modules/2/s3_tast10_6_TheTeachingOfGrammar.htmYukiMaehara,(2008),TheEffectivenessofLearner-centeredGrammarTeaching,ForeignLanguageEducationResearch[J]Volume5,2008,pp115-143.ZarvaTeodorandDoinaVeneraMunteanu,(2013),Aspectsconcerningthelearningofaforeignlanguagegrammarthroughdiscovery,Procedia-SocialandBehavioralSciences,[J],76.901–906.陈崎，刘儒德，2007，《当代教育心理学》[M]北京：北京师范大学出版社，124-129。61 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample陈舜孟，2007，演绎归纳并举在高职高专英语语法教学中的运用——实验研究报告[J]《国外外语教学(FLTA)》，第1期，27-35。程晓堂，2013，关于英语语法教学问题的思考[J]《课程﹒教材﹒教法》第4期，62-71。戴炜栋，陈莉萍，2005二语语法教学理论综述[J]《外语教学与研究(外国语文双月刊)》第2期，92-101。戴炜栋，任庆梅，2006，语法教学的新视角—外显意识增强式任务模式[J]《外语界》第1期，7-16。郝兴跃，2004，20世纪90年代以来国外语法教学的新趋势[J]《外语界》第4期，48-53。衡仁权，2007，国外语法教学研究的最新发展综述[J]《外语界》第6期，25-35。黄和斌，戴秀华，1999，英语语法教学回顾与点评[J]《解放军外国语学院学报》第22卷第6期，65-70。姜南，2010归纳演绎法在初中英语语法教学课堂中的应用研究[J]《中国校外教育》第9期，101。蒋依宸，2011，演绎法与归纳法应用在大学一年级新生英文文法写作课程的效果[MA]国立屏东职业技术学院。刘润清，韩宝成，2010，《语言测试和它的方法》[M]北京：外语教学与研究出版社，第二版，101。罗忠民，何高大，2011，《外语新课程教学论》[M]南京：南京大学出版社，6。骆凤娟，2006，中学英语语法教学的新途径—交互式教学年[J]《月基础英语教育》第12期，28-33。马晶，2012，演绎法与归纳法在高中英语倒装句教学中的效果对比研究[MD]东北师范大学。秦晓晴，2003，《外语教学研究中的定量数据分析》[M]武汉：华中科技大学出版社。秦晓晴，2009，《外语教学问卷调查法》[M]北京：北京外语教学与研究出版社。施良方，2003，《学习论》[M]北京：人民教育出版社，220-234。束定芳，庄智象,1996，《现代外语教学—理论、实践与方法》[M]上海：上海外国语教育出版社，101。熊士荣，徐进,2005,发现学习、接受学习、探究学习比较研究[J]《教师教育研究》第3期，5-9。易仁荣，2009，探索英语模块教学法提高英语教学效益[J]《课程﹒教材﹒教法》第4期，49-55。于杰，2013，归纳法与演绎法在高中英语教学中的对比研究[MD]东北师范大学。俞涛，2006，《心理学专业SPSS13.0步步通》[M]北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司。张新平，2012，大学英语语法教学中的归纳和演绎方法简论[J]《教育界》第10期，116;170。62 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixI高中生对语法及语法教学态度的调查问卷（前测问卷）班级：________性别：同学：您好！以下问题是你对语法学习及教师如何教授语法的调查。此问卷旨在发现英语教师教授语法的问题并帮助教师更好地教授语法。您的答案将对我们产生很大的帮助，请您如实认真填写问卷。谢谢合作！说明：A=非常同意B=同意C=既不同意也不反对D=不同意E=十分不同意。1、我认为语法学习对于英语学习重要。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意2、每次做题时我都能联想到相应的语法规则。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意3、讲解语法时，老师会先列举大量句子，引导我们发现并归纳语法规则。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意4、我对语法学习感兴趣。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意5、讲解语法时，老师会先陈述语法规则，再举例说明，后做练习巩固。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意6、一个月后我对学习的语法项目还能清晰记得。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意7、我觉得老师重视语法教学。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意8、我通过做大量练习掌握目标语法。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意9、老师让我们自己做练习。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意63 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample10、学习完语法后，我能够将语法规则分类整理。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意11、老师讲解语法时，能让我们参与进来，进行积极思考。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意12、学习语法时，我们都是听老师讲，被动接受。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意13、老师会组织我们以小组合作的形式进行语法学习。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意14、我能够掌握老师所讲解的语法。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意15、我认为语法学习非常枯燥。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意16、我对于老师采用的语法教学方法不感兴趣。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意17、老师会帮助我们由一些特殊的例子推到普遍的语法规则上。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意18、我会预习要学习的目标语法。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意19、学习语法时，老师会给我们讲很多语法结构上的变化。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意20、我通过记忆语法规则掌握目标语法。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意21、当我们语法方面出现错误时，老师会直接给我们改正。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意22、老师会引导我们自己改正语法错误在语法方面。1A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意1本问卷及以下问卷均改编自于杰《归纳法与演绎法在高中英语教学中的对比研究》，在此特向作者表示忠心的感谢！64 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixII高中生对语法及语法教学态度的调查问卷（后测归纳式教学班）班级：________性别：_______同学：您好！以下问题是你对用归纳法进行语法教学态度的调查。此问卷旨在发现英语教师教授语法的问题并帮助教师更好地教授语法。您的答案将对我们产生很大的帮助，请您如实认真填写问卷。谢谢合作！说明：A=非常同意B=同意C=既不同意也不反对D=不同意E=十分不同意1、老师进行语法教学时，我能充分参与进来。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意2、我能够通过大量例句找出相应语法规则。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意3、讲解语法时，老师会先列举大量句子。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意4、我对语法开始感兴趣了。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D=不同意E十分不同意5、老师在进行语法教学时，起到了引导的作用。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意6、我们以小组合作的形式学习了语法项目。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意7、我能够积极配合老师的引导。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意8、老师提供的例句数量合适。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意9、我对老师的语法教学方法有了了解。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意65 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample10、学习完语法后，我能够将语法规则分类整理。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意11、课堂中我有充分的时间进行思考。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意12、我现在仍能清晰记得所学过的语法项目。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意13、在这一个月内，除老师所讲内容，我没有做过别的关于目标语法的习题。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意14、在寻找语法规则时，老师给我们预留的时间恰当。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意15、老师会引导我们自己改正语法错误。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意16、我对于老师采用的语法教学方法不感兴趣。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意17、现在我能用自己的语言概括目标语法规则。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意18、我现在仍然不懂目标语法的内容。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意19、我感觉自己发现语法规则更能帮助我理解目标语法。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意20、你觉得归纳式语法教学的优点是什么？21、你觉得归纳式语法教学有什么缺点66 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixIII高中生对语法及语法教学态度的调查问卷（后测演绎式教学班）班级：________性别：_______同学：您好！以下问题是你对用演绎进行语法教学态度的调查。此问卷旨在发现英语教师教授语法的问题并帮助教师更好地教授语法。您的答案将对我们产生很大的帮助，请您如实认真填写问卷。谢谢合作！说明：A=非常同意B=同意C=既不同意也不反对D=不同意E=十分不同意1、老师进行语法教学时，我能充分参与进来。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意2、我听不懂老师讲的语法规则。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意3、我对语法感兴趣了。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D=不同意E十分不同意4、我能够积极配合老师的规则讲解。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意5、我对老师语法教学方法有了了解。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意6、学习完语法后，我能够将语法规则分类整理。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意7、课堂中我有充分的时间进行思考。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意8、我现在仍能清晰记得所学过的语法项目。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意9、在这一个月内，除老师所讲内容，我没有做过别的关于目标语法的习题。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意67 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample10、老师给我们改正语法错误后，我们能理解错误原因。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意11、我对于老师采用的语法教学方法不感兴趣。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意12、现在我能用自己的语言概括目标语法规则。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意13、我现在仍然不懂目标语法的内容。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意14、老师直接给我们讲解语法规则。A非常同意B同意C既不同意也不反对D不同意E十分不同意15、你觉得当前教学方法的优缺点是什么？68 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixIVTeachingDesignfortheEmphaticPattern(Inductiveinstruction)Teachinggoals:MastertheEmphaticPatternandrelatedsentencestructures.Teachingimportantanddifficultpoints:①Howtogetstudentstoknowhowtousethemtoexpressthemselves.②differthemfromothersimilarsentencestructures.Teachingaids:Multi-media,black-boardTeachingprocedures:Step1.PresentationDositdown.→Sitdown.Hedidwritetoyoulastweek.→Hewrotetoyoulastweek.Dobecarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.→Becarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.Shedoeslovetalking.→Shelovestalking.Teachershowthesentencesandgetstudentstoobserveandfindthedifferencesoftheeachpair,andthentrytoreporttheirfindings.Teachercouldask“Whatisthefunctiontheboldanditalicwordinthesentence?”toinducetherule:Theverbmeaningwasemphasizedbyaddingauxiliary:do,didanddoes.Step2.However,whentheotherpartsofasentenceareemphasized,aspecialsentencepatternwillbeused,pleaselookattheflowingsentences.12345TomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheschoolplaygroundwithMike.→ItwasTomwhowasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.Thesubject“Tom”isemphasized,butnototherpersons.→ItwasfootballthatTomwasplayingyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.Theobject“football”isemphasized,butnototherballs.→ItwasyesterdayatthetimethatTomwasplayingfootballontheplaygroundwithMike.Theadverb“yesterdayatthetime”isemphasized,butnotothertime.→ItwasontheschoolplaygroundthatTomwasplayingfootballwithMike.Theadverb“ontheschoolplayground”isemphasized,butnototherplaces.69 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample→ItwaswithMikewho/whomTomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplayground.Theobject“Mike”isemphasized,butnotwithotherpersons.Canyoufindanyrule?Howarethedifferentpartsinthesentenceemphasized?Doyoufindanysentencestructure?Whatisit?Byaskingtogetstudentstofindthesentencepattern:ShowtheEmphaticPatternform:Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclauseandtrytoexplaintostudentsthatthestructurecanbeusedtoemphasizeanypartexcepttheverb.12345Exercises:ImetLiMingattherailwaystationyesterday.Step3.Questionforms.Getstudentstoobservethefollowingexamplestofindtheruleofthe“questform”oftheEmphaticPattern.WasitTomwhowasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike?WhatwasitthatTomwasplayingyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike?WasityesterdaythathemetLiPing?Whenandwherewasitthatyouwereborn?Howisitthatyouusuallygotowork?Teachertriestohelpstudentsbyaskingthequestionstomakethemobserve,compare,guessandinfer,allastguidethemtogaintherules.“Is/Wasit+emphaticpart+that/whoclause”“What/who/when/whereandhowis/wasitthat/whoclause”Exercises:Usethesentencestructuretoaskandanswerothersoneoftheirproudestthingsintheirlifeinpairs.Examples:StudentA:Whatisitthatisoneofyourhobbiesinyourlife?StudentB:Itis…thatisoneofmyhobbiesinmylife.StudentA:Wasitthatisonlyoneofyourhobbiesinyourlife?StudentB:…Step4.Attention:Helpstudentstodiscovertherulebydiscussinginpairs.Ifnot,teachercanoffersomeclues.e.g.ItisIwhoamateacher.70 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleItishewho/thatteachesusFrench.Itisyourfatherwhoiswrongthistime.①Whenthesubjectisemphasized,theverbinthat/whoclauseshouldagreewithit.e.g.Itistheywhooftenhelpmewithmylessons.Itwastheywhorespectedalltheirteachers.IItisyou,notyoursisterthatareinchargeofthecompany.ItishisparentswhohavecometoChina.②Evenifthepluralformofsubjectisemphasized,inthemainsentence,theformisstill“itis/was”.Itwasbecausehermotherwasillthaatshedidn"tgowithus.Itiswhenhegotbackthaatheknewwhathadhappened.Itwasonlyafterhegotwhathehaddesiredthatherealizeditwasnotsoimportant.Itisthehousewherehelivesthatisveryold.Itwaswhatotherstoldhimthathedidn’tbelieve.Itwasawalletinwhichthereisalotofmoneythathepickedup.③when“time”“place”and“reason”ect.areemphasized,“that”isstillusedinsubordinatesentenceinsteadof“when”“where”“why”and“how”ect.Exercises:Itwastheboy_____hadbeeninprison_____stolethemoney.A.who,whereB.that,howC.who,thatD.that,whichStep5.not…until…usedintheemphaticsentencepattern.e.g.Generalsentence:Hedidn"tgotobeduntil/tillhiswifecameback.→Itwasnotuntilhiswifecamebackthathewenttobed.Myfatherdidn"tcomehomeuntil12o"clocklastnight.→Itwasnotuntil12o"clocklastnightthatmyfathercamehome.Ididn’trealizewhattroublehewasinuntilatthattime.→ItwasnotuntilatthattimethatIrealizedwhattroublehewasin.Emphaticsentencepattern:Itis/wasnotuntil+emphaticpart+thatclauseExercise:Itwas_______blackhomeaftertheexperiment.71 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleA.notuntilmidnightdidhegoB.untilmidnightthathedidn’tgoC.notuntilmidnightthathewentD.untilmidnightwhenhedidn’tgoAttention:Doyoufindany“till”inthesesentences?Intheemphaticsentencestructure,“until”cannotbereplacedby“till”;inthatclause“negativeformisnotneeded”.Step6.Differencesbetweenemphaticsentencepatternandothersimilarones.①Emphaticsentencepatternandadverbialclause.Itwasin1921thatourPartywasfounded.(emphaticsentencepattern)In1921ourPartywasfounded.√Itwas1921whenourPartywasfounded.(adverbialclause)1921ourPartywasfounded.×ItwasatthestreetcornerthatImetLucyyesterday.(emphaticsentencepattern)AtthestreetcornerImetLucyyesterday.√ItwasthestreetcornerwhereImetLucyyesterday.(adverbialclause)ThestreetcornerwhereImetLucyyesterday.×②Emphaticsentencepatternandattributeclause.Itwasinthesmallhouse______wasbuiltwithstonesbyhisfather______hespenthischildhood.A.which,thatB.that,whichC.which,whichD.that,whereItwasjustintheroom_____hewasborn_____hedied.A.where,whichB.that,thatC.where,thatD.which,that③Emphaticsentencepatternandobjectiveclause.Itiscertainthatheishonestandmodest.(subjectclause)→Thatheishonestandmodestiscertain.ItisknowntoallthatpaperwasmadefirstinChina.(subjectclause)→ThatpaperwasmadefirstinChinaisknowntoall.Conclusion:Inallthesedifferences,usuallywhentheemphaticsentencepattern“itis/was…that…”crossout,thesentenceisstillanintegratedsentence,thenwecansayitisemphaticsentencepattern,otherwise,itwasnot.Step7.Exercises1.Itistheabilitytodothejob________mattersnotwhereyoucomefromorwhatyouare.72 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleA.oneB.thatC.whatD.it2.Davidsaidthatitwasbecauseofhisstronginterestinliterature_______hechosethecourse.A.thatB.whatC.whyD.how3.Itwaswhenshewasabouttogotobed_____thetelephonerang.A.sinceB.asC.thatD.then4.Why!Ihavenothingtoconfess._______youwantmetosay?A.WhatisitthatB.WhatitisthatC.HowisitthatD.Howitisthat5.Itwaswithgreatjoy_______hereceivedthenewsthathislostdaughterhadbeenfound.AbecauseBwhichCsinceDthat6.Anawfulaccident_______,however,occurtheotherday.A.doesB.didC.hastoD.hadto7.Whywas_____thattheoldwomanwassenttoprison?A.heB.itC.thatD.what8.—________thathemanagedtogettheinformation?—Oh,afriendofhishelpedhim.A.WherewasitB.WhatwasitC.HowwasitD.WhywasitStep8.Homework.(Remembertoreviewwhatlearnedintheclass)73 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixVTeachingDesignfortheEmphaticPattern(Deductiveinstruction)Teachinggoals:MastertheEmphaticPatternandrelatedsentencestructures.Teachingimportantanddifficultpoints:①Howtogetstudentstoknowhowtousethemtoexpressthemselves.②differthemfromothersimilarsentencestructures.Teachingaids:Multi-media,black-boardTeachingprocedures:Step1.PresentationShowtheEmphaticPatternform:Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclauseandtrytoexplaintostudentsthatthestructurecanbeusedtoemphaticanypartexceptfortheverb,fortheverbmeaningwasemphasizedbyaddingauxiliary:do,didanddoes.Examples:Dositdown.Hedidwritetoyoulastweek.Dobecarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.Shedoeslovetalking.Teacherexplains:However,whenweemphasizeotherpartsinasentence,emphaticsentencepatternwillbeused.Forexample:12345TomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheschoolplaygroundwithMike.Weusetheemphaticsentence:Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclause→ItwasTomwhowasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.Thesubject“Tom”isemphasized,butnototherpersons.→ItwasfootballthatTomwasplayingyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike.Theobject“football”isemphasized,butnototherballs.→ItwasyesterdayatthetimethatTomwasplayingfootballontheplaygroundwithMike.Theadverb“yesterdayatthetime”isemphasized,butnotothertime.74 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample→ItwasontheschoolplaygroundthatTomwasplayingfootballwithMike.Theadverb“ontheschoolplayground”isemphasized,butnototherplaces.→ItwaswithMikewho/whomTomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplayground.Theobject“Mike”isemphasized,butnotwithotherpersons.12345Exercises:ImetLiMingattherailwaystationyesterday.Step2.Questionforms.Is/Wasit+emphaticpart+that/whoclauseWhat/who/when/whereandhowis/wasitthat/whoclauseWasitTomwhowasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike?WhatwasitthatTomwasplayingyesterdayatthetimeontheplaygroundwithMike?WasityesterdaythathemetLiPing?Whenandwherewasitthatyouwereborn?Howisitthatyouusuallygotowork?Exercises:Usethesentencestructuretoaskandanswerothersoneoftheirproudestthingsintheirlifeinpairs.Examples:StudentA:Whatisitthatisoneofyourhobbiesinyourlife?StudentB:Itis…thatisoneofmyhobbiesinmylife.StudentA:Wasitthatisonlyoneofyourhobbiesinyourlife?StudentB:…Step3.Attention:①Whenthesubjectisemphasized,theverbinthat/whoclauseshouldagreewithit.e.g.ItisIwhoamateacher.Itishewho/thatteachesusFrench.Itisyourfatherwhoiswrongthistime.②Evenifthepluralformofsubjectisemphasized,inthemainsentence,theeformisstill“itis/was”.e.g.Itistheywhooftenhelpmewithmylessons.Itwastheywhorespectedalltheirteachers.Itisyou,notyoursisterthatareinchargeofthecompany.75 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleItishisparentswhohavecometoChina.③when“time”“place”and“reason”ect.areemphasized,“that”isstillusedinsubordinatesentenceinsteadof“when”“where”“why”and“how”ect.Itwasbecausehermotherwasillthatshedidn"tgowithus.Itiswhenhegotbackthatheknewwhathadhappened.Itwasonlyafterhegotwhathehaddesiredthatherealizeditwasnotsoimportant.Itisthehousewherehelivesthatisveryold.Itwaswhatotherstoldhimthathedidn’tbelieve.Itwasawalletinwhichthereisalotofmoneythathepickedup.Exercise.Itwastheboy_____hadbeeninprison_____stolethemoney.A.who,whereB.that,howC.who,thatD.that,whichStep4.not…until…usedintheemphaticsentencepattern.Emphaticsentencepattern:Itis/wasnotuntil+emphaticpart+thatclausee.g.Generalsentence:Hedidn"tgotobeduntil/tillhiswifecameback.Emphaticsentence：Itwasnotuntilhiswifecamebackthathewenttobed.Myfatherdidn"tcomehomeuntil12o"clocklastnight.→Itwasnotuntil12o"clocklastnightthatmyfathercamehome.Ididn’trealizewhattroublehewasinuntilatthattime.→ItwasnotuntilatthattimethatIrealizedwhattroublehewasin.Attention:Intheemphaticsentencestructure,“until”cannotbereplacedby“till”;inthatclause“negativeformisnotneeded”.Exercise.Itwas_______blackhomeaftertheexperiment.A.notuntilmidnightdidhegoB.untilmidnightthathedidn’tgoC.notuntilmidnightthathewentD.untilmidnightwhenhedidn’tgoStep5.Differencesbetweenemphaticsentencepatternandothersimilarones.Inallthesedifferences,usuallywhentheemphaticsentencepattern“itis/was…that…”crossout,thesentenceisstillintegrity,thenwecansayitisemphaticsentencepattern,otherwise,itwasnot.①Emphaticsentencepatternandadverbialclause.Itwasin1921thatourPartywasfounded.(emphaticsentencepattern)76 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleIn1921ourPartywasfounded.√Itwas1921whenourPartywasfounded.(adverbialclause)1921ourPartywasfounded.×ItwasatthestreetcornerthatImetLucyyesterday.(emphaticsentencepattern)AtthestreetcornerthatImetLucyyesterday.√ItwasthestreetcornerwhereImetLucyyesterday.(adverbialclause)ThestreetcornerwhereImetLucyyesterday.×②Emphaticsentencepatternandattributeclause.Itwasinthesmallhouse______wasbuiltwithstonesbyhisfather______hespenthischildhood.A.which,thatB.that,whichC.which,whichD.that,whereItwasjustintheroom_____hewasborn_____hedied.A.where,whichB.that,thatC.where,thatD.which,that③Emphaticsentencepatternandobjectiveclause.Itiscertainthatheishonestandmodest.(subjectclause)→Thatheishonestandmodestiscertain.ItisknowntoallthatpaperwasmadefirstinChina.(subjectclause)→ThatpaperwasmadefirstinChinaisknowntoall.Step6.Exercises1.Itistheabilitytodothejob________mattersnotwhereyoucomefromorwhatyouare.A.oneB.thatC.whatD.it2.Davidsaidthatitwasbecauseofhisstronginterestinliterature_______hechosethecourse.A.thatB.whatC.whyD.how3.Itwaswhenshewasabouttogotobed_____thetelephonerang.A.sinceB.asC.thatD.then4.Why!Ihavenothingtoconfess._______youwantmetosay?A.WhatisitthatB.WhatitisthatC.HowisitthatD.Howitisthat5.Itwaswithgreatjoy_______hereceivedthenewsthathislostdaughterhadbeenfound.AbecauseBwhichCsinceDthat6.Anawfulaccident_______,however,occurtheotherday.A.doesB.didC.hastoD.hadto77 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample7.Whywas_____thattheoldwomanwassenttoprison?A.heB.itC.thatD.what8.—________thathemanagedtogettheinformation?—Oh,afriendofhishelpedhim.A.WherewasitB.WhatwasitC.HowwasitD.WhywasitStep7.Homework.(Remembertoreviewwhatlearnedintheclass)78 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixVIPre-testpaper（30minutes,totalscores:100）Name:Class:Gender:I.Multiplychoice.(score:11×4)1.Itwasafterhegothehaddesired_______herealizeditwasnotsoimportant.A.thatB.whenC.sinceD.as2.It_____wehadstayedtogetherforacoupleofweeks____Ifoundwehadalotincommon.A.wasuntil;whenB.wasuntil;thatC.wasn’tuntil;whenD.wasn’tuntil;that3.ItwasontheNationalDay___shemetwithherseparatedsister.A.thatB.whereC.whenD.which4.Was_____thatIsawlastnightattheconcert?A.ityouB.notyouC.youD.thatyourself5.Ijustwonder______thatmakeshimsoexcited.A．whyitdoesB．whathedoesC.howitisD.whatitis6.Itwaswhenshewasabouttogotobed_____thetelephonerang.A.sinceB.asC.thatD.then7.ItwasinNewZealand___ElizabethfirstmetMr.Smith.A.thatB.HowC.WhichD.when8..Itwasonlywiththehelpofthelocalguided____.A.wasthemountainclimberrescuedB.thatthemountainclimberwasrescuedC.whenthemountainclimberwasrescuedD.thenthemountainclimberwasrescued9.---______thathemanagedtogettheinformation?---Oh,afriendofhishelpedhim.A.WherewasitB.WhatwasitC.HowwasitD.Whywasit10.Itwasfromonlyafewsuppliesthatshehadboughtinthevillagethehostesscookedsuchanicedinner.A.whereB.thatC.whenD.which11.Itisnotwhoisrightbutwhatisright____isofimportance.79 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleA.whichB.itC.thatD.this12.Itisalmostfiveyears_____wesaweachotherlasttime.A.beforeB.sinceC.afterD.whenII.Rewritethesentenceemphasizingtheverbsinthesentences.(score:4×4)1.Sitdown.2.Hewrotetoyoulastweek.3.Shelovestalking.4.Becarefulwhenyoucrossthestreet.III.Rewritethesentencewiththeemphaticsentencepatternaccordingtotheimplications.(score:5×8)Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclause12345TomwasplayingfootballyesterdayatthetimeontheschoolplaygroundwithMike.1.2.3.4.5.80 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixVIIImmediate-testpaper（30minutes,totalscores:100）Name:Class:Gender:Multiplychoice.(score:11×4)1.Itwasafterhegothehaddesired_______herealizeditwasnotsoimportant.A.thatB.whenC.sinceD.as2.Itwas_____hecamebankfromAfricathatyear____hemetthegirlhewouldliketomarry.A.when;thenB.not;untilC.notuntil;thatD.only;when3.Itwaslastnight___Iseethecomet.A.thetimeB.whenC.thatD.which4.Wasitin1969_____theAmericanastronautsucceeded_____landingonthemoon?A.when,onB.that,onC.when,inD.that,in5.Whowasit_____putsomanylargestonesontheroad?A.thisB.thatC.heD.she6.Itwas_____hesaid_____disappointedme.A.what,thatB.that,thatC.what,whatD.that,what7.ItwasalongtheMississippiRiver______MarkTwainspentmuchofhischildhood.A.howB.WhichC.thatD.where8..Itwasbecauseofbadweather____thefootballmatchhadtobeputoff.A.soB.sothatC.whyD.that9.Whenwas____youmetwiththefamousscientist?A.itthatB.itC.theplaceD.theplacethat10.---Wheredidyougettoknowher?---Itwasonthefarmweworked.A．thatB．thereC．whichD．where11.John’ssuccesshasnothingtodowithgoodluck.Itisyearsofhardwork_________hasmadehimwhatheistoday.A.whyB.whenC.whenD.that81 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExample12.Itwassometime______werealizedthetruth.A.whenB.untilC.sinceD.beforeII.Rewritethesentenceemphasizingtheverbsinthesentences.(score:4×4)1.Shutup.2.Petervisitedhisfriendlastmonth.3.Hisfatherlovesreadingverymuch.4.Beclamwhenyouareindanger.III.Rewritethesentencewiththeemphaticsentencepatternaccordingtotheimplications.(score:5×8)Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclause12nd345SophiapickedupmylostbookonJuly22013onourschoolplaygroundwithherbestfriend.1.2.3.4.5.82 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixVIIIDelayed-testpaper（30minutes,totalscores:100）Name:Class:Gender:Multiplychoice.(score:11×4)1.Itwasafterhegothehaddesired_______herealizeditwasnotsoimportant.A.thatB.whenC.sinceD.as2.Itwas_______blackhomeaftertheexperiment.A.notuntilmidnightdidhegoB.untilmidnightthathedidn’tgoC.notuntilmidnightthathewentD.untilmidnightwhenhedidn’tgo3.ItmayhavebeenatChristmas_____JohngaveMaryahandbag.A.beforeB.whoC.thatD.when4.Wasit_____hesaid_____disappointedme?A.what,thatB.that,thatC.what,whatD.that,what5.Whywas_____thattheoldwomanwassenttoprison?A.heB.itC.thatD.what6.Itwastheboy_____hadbeeninprison_____stolethemoney.A.who,whereB.that,howC.who,thatD.that,which7.Itwasatthegate_____hetoldmethenews.A.thatB.whatC.whichD.when8.Itwasforthisreason____herunclemovedoutofNewYorkandsettleddowninasmallvillage.A．whichB．whyC．thatD.how9.Whenwasityoucalledmeyesterday?A.untilB.thatC.thenD.so10.—Hewasnearlydrownedonce.—Whenwas?—____wasin1998whenhewasinmiddleschool.A.that;ItB.this;ThisC.this;ItD.that;This11.Itwasfromonlyafewsuppliesthatshehadboughtinthevillagethehostesscookedsucha83 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExamplenicedinner.A.whereB.thatC.whenD.which12.Thatwasreallyasplendidevening.It"syears______Ienjoyedmyselfsomuch.A.whenB.thatC.beforeD.sinceII.Rewritethesentenceemphasizingtheverbsinthesentences.(score:4×4)1.Comein.2.ShecametoLondonlastweek.3.Helikessingingindeed.4.Besilentinclass.III.Rewritethesentencewiththeemphaticsentencepatternaccordingtotheimplications.(score:5×8)Itis/was+emphaticpart+that/whoclause12345XiaoWangwenttohospitaltoseehisfriendyesterdaywithhislittlesister.1.2.3.4.5.84 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixIXTable5.16TheResultsofthePre-questionnairesinECandCC85 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAppendixXTable5.19TheResultsofthePost-questionnairesinECandCC86 AComparativeStudyontheEffectsofInductiveandDeductiveApproachestoTeachingEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchools—TakingEmphaticPatternasanExampleAcknowledgementsFirstandforemost,IwouldliketospeciallydedicatemythankstoProfessorYuTing,mysupervisor,whohassupervisedmyworkandgivenmeherconstructiveinstructionsandcommentstohelpmecompletemyschoolingandthethesis.Shesetabrilliantexampleformebothinpursuingacademicsandinlearningtobe,whichwillbenefitmeinallmylife.Secondly,IwouldliketoexpressmysinceregratitudetootherProfessorsandteachers,whohavegenerouslyofferedtheirinvaluableadviceandassistanceinmystudyaswellasthesis.Atthesametime,Iwouldliketoalsothankallthestaffaswellasmyclassmatesontheuniversitycampus.Withouttheirgeneroushelp,Iwouldneveraccomplishmystudyandpresentthesis.Therearemanypeoplewhohavemadetheireffortstohelpmecompletethisthesis.Iamgreatlyindebtedtomywife,whohasagreedtohelpconducttheexperimentinherlessons,administratethetestsandquestionnaires.Iamalsodeeplygratefultomyparentswhohavecontinuouslygivenmetheirsupportsandencouragements.Especially,duringmystudytime,theyhavebeenresponsibleforlookingaftermylovelydaughter.Finally,mygreatthanksgotoallthepeoplewhoareinvolveddirectlyorindirectlyinthisparticularstudy.Withouttheirencouragement,helpandcooperation,Iwouldnothavebeenabletocometothecompletionofthepresentthesis.87