归纳法和演绎法在高中英语语法教学中的作用对比分析 66页

．、：１Ｉ’＇：；重，、苗ｒ：狂运Ａ；，满ｃ游徽＇，鱗错與每對沪．Ｖ祭Ｐ＂、：齡Ｗ拭巧成革令觀＾」，；憐議為＇＇．、，‘，＂Ｉ１’＇．布｜：扣：钱古；巧鄰Ｖ镇｜’Ｉ．‘．．产：Ｖ嚇館，義鷄试游．．＇‘马＾．学锭倾，諭’；巧矿：鑛瓣苦＿葉谈＞巧巧生学号；，麵辦１６為—‘．．’．．’ｊ片．－．分类号：腿识兰，．＼，．化无与；懲每密Ｖ、ｐ苗吟＇’．Ｉ．．芒－＇．＇’‘．、－Ｖ－．；若去．‘Ｖ斯痒：＇：＇ｖ；ｖ＜＇＇＇—：＇Ｉ．黨矜攀黎致熟：＾Ｐ謂鶴賴馨齊這鑽＇’．＇＇一’．‘－？，．’作．．＇－＇打＇：．ｒ：為苗兩咬巧．；：ｒ公：巧、韓訪？…‘巧代试芒；．＾＾一、．？．ｖ；４ｆ端積鶴硕±学位论文．；；轉黨；；雜＼．．；為義魏藏Ｐ、’—戀鑑．Ａ■ＣＡｍａｒａｔｉｖｅＳｔｕｄ〇１化ｅＥｆｆｅｃｔｓｏｆＤｅｄｕｃ村ｏｎ若知＼ｐｙａｎｄＩｎｄｕｃｔｉｏｎｍ二兴把兰奪孚ＥｎｇｌｉｓｈＧｒａｍｍａｒＴｅａｃｈｉｎｇｉｎＳｅｎｉｏｒＨｉｇｈＳｃｈｏｏｌ心鶴参；归纳法巧巧巧法在巧中英语语法教学中的作用对比分巧；襄ｓ营荀：類誤．－Ｓ＾＇．‘？．：．、．Ｖ、Ｖ．１；、／＞．．．＊‘．：－’‘：．．常。＇．７诚！今，－＇．．＇．封－户．，Ｖ＇．；．．，；．，沪邀群＇、．．’＇＇＂．古．咕＇相－玄．成一祥兮乐诗．．巧：‘；芋诗苗；’茲滅、护＇托■‘‘ｔ’＇．Ｖ．．片知：Ｖ扭．、背；娩。＾■■＾■ｖ＾．：ｖｉＷ，ｍ．、‘．．．．．－．．：．．扣、．－：彭Ｖ边磁麵银彌：輯．梦雜粒进苗峭．’．．．：、＇．：指导教师于飞苦；臀ＩＭＷＩ．為韓卷．姑技骑忠强，禪Ｓ心心奪裝去ｆ冥－．、、．二．舌；：级巧１＾１＼学富义学Ｖ．鸿ｒ惡，｜累寺麵呵ｆ’＇．研巧方尚；巧用斯学：ｔ：乃把巧於哲＇沪．．—．‘型：．’拉类孝学术化；．．；＾．＾鼓議義芭璧：５，；＾）議；鑛＾鎮六｜‘’’＇’＇．：．、＇．‘．．－．；．．．’、：．；：＾＾棋？；．、，心：ｒ；被辦巧帮哪车韻：。，系珥＾抒芯＞ｒ敎法＇、誕葦跨雖薛娘‘爲、職’；、：＾茜．、：．巧麵霉錫毅Ｘ麵画＇成，１；、＝’？’兴＇．巧、，弦读媒，啤＼觀＃謹痛纖嚷領藏編巧、讀？驅鑛＇‘？＇韓＾、、＇＾？‘：：．；＾：侣，古畔东化师巧大；：学学位评定贵、＼Ｌ；桑營＞中满韓；薄濟‘＇．．．－．心＾淆：杂梓－．．化沾．舞成：社Ｖ、，只；２０５，山带誓年月耗＼冷’夺’＾．．；．＇＇＇＇＇’．．．．．－：．＾：：护．：心：為Ｖ如端增，巧鮮巧：韻，＼‘．讀您｜心．＇‘＇’－＇－．｜．；．：片＇、、＊：．記；．堪：；；嘉妒；；；．＜巧却巧带占題之迫片—导心＞＇．＇‘＇｜‘＇＇＂．＇■－；＇．■＇．．■－＇－：‘．＇＇－：：：八，；‘＇：荒Ｖ為：、：．＇，＇：．；；．＇ｘ：：為租茂：＾．、．；．贵蘇；、％茜夢裤甘諸尝―叢增雄繊省砖德嚴’‘等．，－．；；訪衣；Ｖ％謀耗．：Ｖ．巧施雜無苗繫辨；Ｖ；麵巧曲部知游４學＇、．：；；．投山ｉ城楚ｔｅ：々齡恥辩评：；與；货艇ｒ满专振ｖ如醉游；璃貼巧詞嫌城；讀難義避鍵誘豁等擊ｉ禱霸霖學 独创性声明本人声明所呈交的学位论文是本人在导师指导下进行的研究工作及取得的研究成果。据我所知，除了文中恃别加Ｗ标注和致谢的地方外，论文中不包含其他人已经发表或撰写过的研究成果，也不包含为获得东北师范大学或其他教育机构的学位或证书而使用过的材料一。与我同工作的同志对本研究巧做的任何贡献均己在论文中作了明确的说明并表奉谢意。、学位论文作者签名＇；１日期；ｆｉ％抑＿！学位论文版权使用授权书本学位论文作者完全了解东北师范大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，即：东北师范大学有权保留并向国家有关部口或机构送交学位论文的复印件和磁蟲，允许论文被查阅和借阅。本人授权东北师范大学可将学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可臥采用影印、缩印或其它复制手段保存、汇编学位论文。（保密的学位论文在解密后适用本授权书）学位论义作者證名；Ｊ指导教师签名：－４＾—＇曰期：心日期：立／／１学位论文作者毕业后去向：工作单位：：电话：：通巧地址邮编 学校代码：10200研究生学号：2013100916分类号：H31密级:无硕士学位论文AComparativeStudyoftheEffectsofDeductionandInductioninEnglishGrammarTeachinginSeniorHighSchool归纳法和演绎法在高中英语语法教学中的作用对比分析作者：韩庆艳指导教师：于飞副教授一级学科：外国语言文学二级学科：英语语言文学研究方向：应用语言学学位类型：学术硕士东北师范大学学位评定委员会2016年5月 AbstractEnglish,asawhole,ismadeupofmanyparts.GrammarisanindispensablepartofEnglish,anditcanbedefinedastherulesoflanguage.Noinformationcanbeconveyedwithoutgrammaticalrules.Thus,weshouldpaymoreattentiontothegrammarteachingwhichisanessentialpartofEnglishteaching.EnglishgrammarhasbeenafocusintheprocessoftheEnglishteachinginseniorhighschoolinourcountryanditisoneofthedifficultiesintheteachingprocess.Agreatmanyofscholarshaveputforwardvariouskindsofteachingtheoriesandteachingmethods.ThedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproacharetwomajorEnglishteachingmethods,andtherearemanydifferencesbetweenthem.AndalsotheirrolesinEnglishteachingaredifferent.Thedeductiveapproachis,inessence,atraditionalteachingmethod.Whiletheinductiveapproachisanewone.Wecannotsaywhichoneisbetterormoreeffective.ThispaperistomakeanelaborationofthedefinitionandthedevelopmentofinductionanddeductionandtomakeanempiricalresearchinordertofindoutwhatroleeachofthemplaysinEnglishclassroomteaching.Thepurposeoftheexperimentistoinvestigatethedifferentroleofthetwomethodsforteachinggrammar,andwhichoneismoresuitableforChinesestudentstolearnEnglishgrammar.TheexperimentsubjectsoftheresearcharetwoparallelclassesfromahighschoolinUlanhot,Xing"anMeng.ThestudentsinthesetwoclassesaretaughtbythesameEnglishteacher,thatis,theauthorofthispaper.Theyareseniortwostudentsinclass10andclass18.Class10istheexperimentalgroupandclass18isthecontrolgroup.Theexperimentalgroupistaughtbyusingtheinductivemethodwhilethecontrolgroupusesthetraditionalmethod,thatis,thedeductivemethod.Whydowechoosethesetwoclasses?BecausethestudentsfromthetwoclassesareatthesameEnglishlevelandtheyhavethesameeducationalbackground.Thestudents’lasttermfinalexaminationscoresareusedtoexaminetheirEnglishlevelandafteracarefulanalysis,wefindtheyareatthesameEnglishlevel,whichguaranteestheexperiment’svalidity.Grammarcontentofthispaperisthesubjunctivemood.Itistaughtinthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachinthetwoclassesseparately.Thewholeresearchlastsforndthabouttwomonths,fromNovember2,2015toJanuary4,2016.First,weusethepre-testtoexamineifthestudentshaveknownsomethingaboutthesubjunctivemood.Then,itistheexperimentanditlastsforaboutonemonth.Third,itistheimmediatetestanddelayedtest.Weusethetwoteststoseetheeffectsofthedeductiveteachingandtheinductiveteaching.Andthenweusethequestionnairestodoasurveyinthetwoclasses.Inorderthatwecanknowaboutstudents’attitudestowardsdeductionandinduction.AndalsowehaveinterviewswithsomeEnglishteacherstoknowtheirunderstandingandusingofdeductionandinduction.AllofthedatawillbeanalyzedbytheSPSS19.0.Wecangetsomefindingsfromthedataanalysisoftheexperiment.Accordingtothedataanalysisoftheresultofthetests,especiallytheimmediatetestandthedelayedtest,wefindintheimmediatetestthemeanscoreofthecontrolgroupwhichistaughtbydeductionisalittleI higherthantheexperimentalgroupwhichistaughtinductively.Whileinthedelayedtesttheexperimentalgroupoutperformsthecontrolgroup.Allthistestifythatstudentscanunderstandgrammaticalruleseasilyandgethighscoresinthedeductiveapproach,butwhataretaughtinductivelycanberememberedforalongertimebythestudents.Accordingtothedataanalysisofthequestionnaires,themajorityofstudentsbelievethatdeductionhelpstoacquireknowledgeeasily,andinductioncanenhancetheirinterestinlearninggrammar,andthiskindofdiscoverylearningcanenhanceself-satisfaction,activeclassroomatmosphere.Accordingtotheteachersbeinginterviewedtheuseofthedeductivemethodofteachingismorefrequent,butforthestudentsofthehighlevel,theuseofinductionseemstobemoreeffective.Keywords:Englishgrammarteaching;thedeductiveapproach;theinductiveapproach;comparativestudyII 摘要英语作为一个整体是由许多部分构成的。而语法是英语不可或缺的一部分，它可以被定义为语言的规则。没有语法规则，人们之间的交流是不可能的。因此，作为英语里不可缺少的一部分，我们应该更关注英语语法教学。英语语法在我国高中英语教学中一直是一个重点也是教学过程中的难点。许多学者提出了各种各样的教学理论和教学方法。归纳法和演绎法是两种主要的教学方法，这两者之间有许多的不同之处。演绎法从其本质上来说是一种传统的教学方法。然而归纳法却是一种新的教学方法。我们不能说哪一种方法更好或者是更有效。本文主要阐释归纳法和演绎法的定义及发展，并且旨在做一个实证研究，其目的是发现两者在高中英语课堂教学的作用。此次实验的目的是希望通过调查分析找出这两种方法对于语法学习的不同作用，以及何者更适合中国学生的英语语法学习。本文研究的实验主体是一所高中的两个平行班级的学生，这所高中位于兴安盟乌兰浩特市。由同一位英语老师来教这两个班级，这位老师也就是这篇论文的作者。这些学生来自高二10班和高二18班。高二10班是实验组，高二18班是控制组。实验组用归纳法进行教学，控制组用演绎法进行教学。他们上学期的期末成绩被用来检验他们的英语水平，在仔细的分析之后，发现他们的英语水平在大体上是相同的，从而保证了实验的有效性。本文研究的语法内容是虚拟语气。在归纳组和演绎组，我们会分别教授这个语法内容。整个研究持续两个月，从2015年十一月二日到2016年一月四日。首先，我们用前测试卷检测，看学生们是否了解虚拟语气这一语法内容。然后，我们开始本文的教学实验，为期一个月。第三，接下来是及时测试和延时测试，我们用这两组试卷去检测归纳法教学和演绎法教学的作用。然后我们会做一个关于归纳法和演绎法的问卷调查在本次实验的两个班级。目的是了解学生们对于归纳法和演绎法的态度和看法。此外，我们也会和一些英语老师做访谈，了解他们对归纳和演绎的理解和运用。本文所有的数据都用社会科学统计程序进行分析。在实验的数据分析中，我们有一些发现。根据对考试的数据分析，尤其是及时测试和延时测试，我们发现在及时测试中，用归纳法教学的控制组的平均分要高于用演绎法教学的实验组。然而，在延时测试中，演绎法要比归纳法表现的好。所有这些都说明在归纳法教学中，学生更容易理解语法规则，从而更能够获得好成绩，但是学生能够更长时间记得通过演绎法学得的知识。依据测试和问卷的数据分析，大多数学生认为演绎法有助于他们掌握知识，而归纳法更能提高他们在英语语法学习方面的兴趣，这种发现式学习能增强学生们的自我满足感，活跃英语课堂气氛。而根据被采访的英语老师来看，老师们更经常第使用演绎法教学，但是对于英语水平高的学生，老师们提倡使用归纳法教学，因为归纳法教学对英语能力的培养更加有效。关键词：英语语法教学；归纳法；演绎法；对比分析III ContentsAbstract......................................................................................................................................I摘要......................................................................................................................................IIIContents...................................................................................................................................IVChapterOneIntroduction..................................................................................................11.1BackgroundoftheResearch.....................................................................................11.2SignificanceoftheResearch.....................................................................................21.3PurposeoftheResearch............................................................................................21.4OrganizationofthePaper..........................................................................................3ChapterTwoLiteratureReview..........................................................................................42.1DefinitionsandDevelopmentofDeductionandInduction......................................42.1.1DefinitionsofDeductionandInduction.........................................................42.1.2DevelopmentofDeductionandInduction.....................................................62.2TheoreticalBasis.......................................................................................................72.2.1Constructivism...............................................................................................72.2.2TheTask-basedTeaching...............................................................................82.3StudiesonDeductionandInduction.........................................................................92.3.1StudiesAbroad...............................................................................................92.3.2StudiesatHome...........................................................................................12ChapterThreeResearchMethodology.............................................................................143.1HypothesisandResearchQuestions.......................................................................143.2Subjects...................................................................................................................153.3Instruments..............................................................................................................163.3.1Tests.............................................................................................................163.3.2Questionnaire...............................................................................................163.3.3Interviews.....................................................................................................173.4ExperimentProcedures...........................................................................................173.4.1Pre-experiment.............................................................................................173.4.2Experiment...................................................................................................183.4.3Post-experiment............................................................................................193.5DataCollection........................................................................................................19ChapterFourDataAnalysisandDiscussion....................................................................204.1DataAnalysisoftheTests.......................................................................................204.1.1DataAnalysisoftheFinalExaminationoftheSpringSemester.................204.1.2DataAnalysisofthePre-test........................................................................224.1.3DataAnalysisoftheImmediateTest............................................................244.1.4DataAnalysisoftheDelayedTest...............................................................264.2DataAnalysisoftheQuestionnaire.........................................................................27IV 4.3DataAnalysisoftheInterviews..............................................................................304.4DiscussionoftheResults........................................................................................31ChapterFiveConclusion....................................................................................................345.1MajorFindings........................................................................................................345.2Implications.............................................................................................................355.3Limitations..............................................................................................................35References...............................................................................................................................37Appendices..............................................................................................................................40AppendixOne..................................................................................................................40AppendixTwo..................................................................................................................42AppendixThree................................................................................................................44AppendixFour..................................................................................................................45AppendixFive..................................................................................................................46AppendixSix....................................................................................................................50AppendixSeven...............................................................................................................54Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................58V ChapterOneIntroductionThischapterintroducesthebackgroundinformationforthepaper.Itismadeupoffourparts.Thefirstpartisthebackgroundoftheresearch.Thesecondpartisthesignificanceoftheresearch.Thethirdpartisthepurposeandthelastpartistheorganizationoftheresearch.1.1BackgroundoftheResearchWiththedevelopmentoftheworld,Englishisbecomingtheinternationallanguageofthecommon.Inordertofollowthepaceoftheworld,moreandmorepeoplebegintolearnEnglish.InChina,childrenbegintolearnEnglishatsevenoreightyearsoldandtheylearnEnglishfornearlytenyears.Languagesystem,asawhole,includesthefollowingparts:morphology,syntax,phonetics,phonologyandsoon.Omittingoneofthem,thewholesystemwillbebroken.Sogrammar,asanessentialpartofEnglishlanguagesystemshouldbelearnedwell.DavidWilkinsstatedthat“withoutgrammarlittlecanbeconveyed”(1972).Grammaristheformativerulesofalanguage.Weexpressthesemanticandpragmaticinformationthroughgrammar.GrammaristhecornerstoneofEnglish.Ifstudentsdon’tlearntheEnglishgrammaticalrules,theycannotwritelogicandfluentarticles,masterEnglishonthewholeandtherefore,theycannotreachanewerandhigherlevelinEnglish.Eventhoughtheycouldapplythebasicskills,suchaslistening,speaking,readingandwriting.Onthecontrary,withthecommandofEnglishgrammar,learnerscanunderstandEnglishbetterandmorepreciselybyanalyzingthelanguagestructureundertheguidanceofgrammaticalrules.Grammar,the“law”ofEnglish,iscrucialtothelearningofEnglish.ItisimportanttolearngrammarwellinordertolearnEnglishwell.ButbecauseofthebirthoftheCommunicationTeachingMethod,moreandmoreattentionispaidtothecommunicationfunctionofEnglish,thatis,oralEnglish,theroleofgrammarinEnglishisdownplayedbothbytheteachersandstudents.Teachingisanactivity.Itisnotonlyaneducationalactivityinwhichteachersguidestudentstolearn,butalsoanlearningactivityinwhichstudentslearntostudyundertheguidanceofteachers.Forteachers,teachingisakindofeducationalactivityinwhichtheyuseinstructionalactivitiestoleadstudentstolearn.Forstudents,teachingisviewedaslearningactivitiesundertheguidanceoftheteacher.Infact,teachingismorethanaseriesofactivities,itisaninteractiveprocessinwhichteachersteachandstudentslearnandbecomemorefullydeveloped.Itisaprocessthroughwhichstudentsacquireknowledge,masterskills,developabilitiesundertheguidanceofteachers,developinbothbodyandmind,andformcertainemotionalattitudesandvalues.Nomatterwhattypeofteachingitis,ithascertainmethod.Thedifferenceamongthemethodsiswhetheritismoreeffectiveorlesseffective.Effectiveteachingmethodscannotonlyensurethesuccessoftheteachingactivity,butalsoassuretoachievetheteachingobjectives.Teachingmethodsreferstothespecificteachingskillsandtechniques,thatis,"tosolveaspecificprobleminaspecificpractice".Forexample,therearedeductivemethodand1 inductivemethodingrammarteaching.Manyotherteachingmethodshavebeenputforward,suchasDirectMethod,theOralApproach,theSituationalLanguageTeaching,theAudio-lingualMethod,CommunicativeLanguageTeaching,TotalPhysicalResponse,theSilentWay,CommunityLanguageLearning,theNaturalApproach,Suggestopedia,etc(Richards&Rodgers,1986).Differentmethodsleadtodifferentresults.However,theteachingmethodsandteachingeffectivenessoftheseniorhighschoolsinChinaareworrisome.Theteachersareusedtousingthetraditionalmethods.Inclassroomteaching,theteachersexplainthegrammarrulesandthestudentswritetherules.Forthestudents,Englishlearningusuallystartsfromtheprimaryschool,withalongperiodofsevenyears,eightyears,oreven10years,buttheystillcannotuseEnglishtomakedialoguesandcannotunderstandwhattheyaretalkingwhentheBritishandtheAmericansspeak.Thereasonisthattheexamination-orientededucationcancultivatestudentswhoareonlygoodatexaminations,overlookingtoraisetheiroverallquality.Differentwaysoflearningmayincreasetheirknowledge,furthertheirskills.Sothecomparativestudyoftheeffectsofdifferentteachingmethodsisnecessary.1.2SignificanceoftheResearchWecanseethatthecomparativestudiesinourcountryaremoreabouttheoriesthanempiricalresearches.ThiscannotgivesomeenlightenmenttoimproveEnglishgrammarteachinginseniorhighschools.Meanwhilewecanlearnfromthestudiesabroad,butwecannotimitatethem,becausethesestudiesmaynotbeproperforEnglishgrammarteachinginChina.SoitisnecessarytoconductanempiricalresearchintheclassroomsettinginChina.Themainmethodofthestudyisbasedoncombiningthetheorieswithpracticesandwidelyreferringtothedomesticandforeignliteraturematerials.Onthebasisofthisanalysisandresearch,someregularunderstandingsaretobesummarized.Theoretically,fromthispapermoretheories,evidencesandaclearerconceptionaboutthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachcanbegained.Teacherswillknowmoreaboutthetwoapproaches,whichisgoodfortheirEnglishgrammarteaching.Practically,thispapercanprovidesuggestionsaboutwhichapproach,thedeductiveortheinductiveapproach,ismoreeffectiveinEnglishgrammarteachinginseniorhighschools.Andalsoitcangivetheteacherssomeenlightenmentabouttheformsandteachingstepsofthetwoapproaches.1.3PurposeoftheResearchThepurposeofthisresearchistocomparetheeffectsofthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachinEnglishgrammarteachinginSeniorhighschool.Thisthesiswillfocusontheacquisitionofanewgrammaritem,thesubjunctivemood.ItseekstooffermoreevidencesinwhichaspectofEnglishteaching,thedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachiseffectiveandefficient.Besides,thispaperintentstofindoutinwhatcircumstancedeductionandinductioncanbeapplied,andwhichoneismoreappropriate,andhowtousethem.What’smore,thispaperwillfindoutteachers’andstudents’preferenceandinclinationtowardsthetwokindsofteachingmethods.2 1.4OrganizationofthePaperThispaperismadeupoffivechapters:Thefirstchapteristheintroductionwhichcomprisesfourparts:thebackground,thesignificance,thepurposeandtheorganizationofthepaper.Chaptertwoistheliteraturereview.Itmainlyintroducessomebasicinformationaboutdeductionandinduction.Studiesaboutdeductionandinduction,abroadandathomearepresented.Chapterthreeistheresearchdesign.Itisthemajorpartofthispaper.First,thehypothesisandresearchquestionsareintroduced.Thenitcomestothesubjectsandinstruments.Thethirdpartistheexperimentproceduresandinthisparttheauthorwillexplainthewholeexperimentindetail.Thelastpartisthedatacollection.Chapterfouristhedatapresentationoftheexperimentandtheanalysisofthedata.ThedataareprocessedandanalyzedbySPSS19.0.Thelastchapteristheconclusion,whichpresentsthemajorfindings,theimplicationsandlimitationsoftheresearch.3 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewThischapteristheliteraturereview.Itintroducesthedefinitionsanddevelopmentofdeductionandinduction.Andalsothestudiesaboutthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach,abroadandathome,areintroduced.2.1DefinitionsandDevelopmentofDeductionandInductionInthispart,thedefinitionsofdeductionandinductionareshownfirstinordertogetsomeenlighteninginsightaboutthetwoapproaches.Andthenitcomestothedevelopmentofdeductionandinduction,thatishowdeductionandinductioncomeintobeingandhowtheydevelop.2.1.1DefinitionsofDeductionandInductionFromtheancientscholarstothescholarsnowadays,variouskindsofdefinitionsofdeductionandinductionhavebeenputforward.Here,inthissection,someclassicaldefinitionsarecitedandexamplesareusedtoexplainthem.Inthefreeonlinedictionary,deductionisdefinedasamethodofreasoningbywhichoneinfersaconclusionfromasetofsentencesbyemployingtheaxiomsandrulesofinferenceforagivenlogicalsystem.Italsogivesinductionadefinition:aprocessofdemonstrationinwhichageneraltruthisgatheredfromanexaminationofparticularcases,oneofwhichisknowntobetrue,theexaminationbeingsoconductedthateachcaseismadetodependontheprecedingone.Stern(1992:150)explainsthedistinctionbetweendeductionandinductionbyusingthefollowingfigureInductiveDeductiveExamplesRules↓↓PracticeExamples↓↓RulesPracticeTheinductive-deductiveparadigm(Stern,1992)Rivers(1981)usesanalysis“learningbyunderstandingrules”torefertoinduction.Heusesadifferenttermtorefertodeduction:analogyislearningbygeneralizationfromexamples.Fromtheperspectivesofformallogicandtraditional(i.e.,positivist)philosophyofscience,deductionisaninferentialformthatgoesfromgenerallaw-likestatementstospecificfacts,andinductiondoestheopposite(Chalmers,1999;Hawthorne,2011).“Deductivereasoningisamovementfromageneralizationtospecificinstances:specific4 subsumedfactsareinferredordeducedfromageneralprinciple.Inthecaseofinductivereasoning,onestoresanumberofspecificinstancesandinducesagenerallaworruleorconclusionthatgovernsorsubsumesthespecificinstances.Inductionanddeductionreasoningaretwopolaraspectsofthegeneralizationprocess.Classroomlearningtendstorelymuchmoreondeductivereasoning.Secondlanguagelearninginvolvesalargelyinductiveprocess,inwhichlearnersmustinfercertainrulesandmeaningsfromallthedataaroundthem.”(Brown,1994:92).Deductionisasystematicprocesswhosegoalistodrawavalidconsequencefromaseriesofpremises.Itrequiresonetoconsiderthepremisesastrueandtoinferwhatconclusion,ifany,follows.Bydefinition,avaliddeductionyieldsaconclusionthatmustbetruegiventhatthepremisesaretrue.Deductiondoesnotincreasesemanticinformation;thatis,theconclusionofavaliddeductionrulesoutthesamepossibilitiesasthepremisesorelsefewerpossibilities.Deductionsometimesisalsocalled"top-down"approach,fromthegeneral’swayofthinkingtotheindividual"s,fromthegeneral’sknowledgeleadstotheindividual’s,drawnfromthegeneralpremisetothespecialnatureoftheconclusionoftheprocess.Churchman(1971:94)summarizeddeductionas“Thetheoriesgivenfirstly,andthenthedetailsinferredsecondly”.Inductionisathoughtprocessthataimstodrawaplausibleconclusionfromparticularobservationsorpremises.Itincreasessemanticinformation;thatis,theconclusiongoesbeyondthepremisesbyexcludingatleastsomeadditionalpossibilityoverandabovethecircumstancesthatthepremisesruleout.Inanarrowsense,inductionisageneralizationmethodfromtheobservationofparticularcasestoallcases.Felder(1995)sharedhisopinionthatdeductiondoesintheoppositedirection.Inductionisareasoningprogressionwhichproceedsfromparticular(observation,measurements,anddata)togeneralities(rules,laws,andtheories).“Inductionevokesnaturallanguagelearningandavarietyofdirectmethod.Itiseasilyidentifiedwithacquisition.Deductionevokestheimageofthegrammar-basedmethodsandofcognitiveapproaches.Itiseasilyidentifiedwithlearning,and”(Decoo,1996).Fromtheintroductionabove,wemaygetsomeunderstandingsaboutdeductionandinduction.Here,Iwilluseatable(SeeTable2.1)toexplainthetwothinkingwayssothatwecanunderstandtheconceptionsbetter.Table2.1ExamplesofDeductiveThinkingandInductiveThinkingDeductionInductionHumanbeingsneedtodrinkwater.HegoestofishingonMonday.ExamplesHegoestofishingonTuesday.Tomisahuman.HegoestofishingonWednesday.5 SoTomneedstodrinkwater,too.Hegoestofishingeveryday.Intheleftcolumn,thewholesituationHumanbeingsneedtodrinkwaterisshownfirst,andthenitisusedtothespecificoneTom.Whileintherightcolumn,itcanbeinducedthroughsomesimilarities,HegoestofishingfromMondaytoWednesday,andfinally,itisgeneralizedthatHegoestofishingeveryday.2.1.2DevelopmentofDeductionandInductionOnmankind"sunderstandingofhistory,itshouldbefromthesensoryexperiencethroughabstractionandintotheconceptsandtheories,sologically,inductionwillinevitablybecomeoneofthefirsttorecognize.Philosophy,whetherEastorWest,istheworld"sfirsttodiscusstheoriginornatureoftheproblem.Thisinitselfisinductiveconclusions,oratleastassociatedwithinductivethinking.DeductionhasbeenanimportantintellectualtoolwithinWesternPhilosophicalandscientificthinkingsincethetimeofAristotle.Aristotleisthefirstonewhoadvocatedthatweshouldstudythedeductionsystematically.Andheputforwardthesyllogismdeduction.Themainformofdeductivereasoningissyllogismwhichincludesmajorpremise,minorpremiseandconclusion.Majorpremiseiscalledthegeneralrules;minorpremiseiscalledthespecificone;theconclusionreferstotheargument.WeallknowEuclid’sgeometry,butwhatwedon’tknowisthatEuclid’sgeometry’ssuccessisbasedonAristotle’ssyllogismdeduction.AccordingtoCohenandManion(1980),deductivereasoningwentunchallengedfromthetimeofAristotletothemiddleages,whenthephilosopherFrancisBaconswitchedtheprocessofworkingfromprinciplestoexamplesonitshead.FrancisBaconasanimportantphilosopheristhefounderofinduction.“Thesyllogismisnotappliedtothefirstprinciplesofsciences,andisappliedinvaintointermediateaxioms,beingnomatchforthesubtletyofnature.Itcommandsassentthereforetotheproposition,butdoesnottakeholdofthething”(Bacon,1620).Hedevelopedinductionintoalogicalsystem.IntheNewOrganon,hedescribedthepurposes,principles,methodsandthelimitationsofinduction,whichmadeinductionmorecompleteandlogical.AfterFrancisBacon,JohnStuartMilldevelopedBacon’sinductiontheoriesandfoundhisownmethod,whichiscalledMill’sMethod.CharlesSandersPeirce,livingfrom1839-1914,isanimportantpersoninthedevelopmentofinduction.Heguidedtheresearchofinductiontothemoderninduction.Formorethan2000years,manylanguageteachingmethodshavebeenputforward,namely,thegrammar-translationmethod,thedirectmethod,theaudio-lingualmethod,theaudio-visualmethodandthefunctionalapproach.DeductionisparticularlythecharacteristicsoftheGrammar-Translationmethodologythatgrewupintheearlytomid-nineteenthcenturyandweakenedabout150yearsago.Classroomactivityalsostartwiththestatementofgrammaticalrules,followedbyalengthyvocabularylist,intendedtobelearnedbyheart.Thentranslationexercisesaredonebythestudentsintoandoutofthetargetlanguage.Throughdeduction,ideasoflanguageknowledgecanbeclarified,andtheprinciplesof6 languageareclearlypresented.Itusuallyfocusesontheform.Inductionisgoingalongwiththeseapproachesandmethods:DirectMethod,theOralApproach,theAudio-lingualMethod,theSituationalLanguageTeaching,CommunicativeLanguageTeaching,theSilentWay,TotalPhysicalResponse,CommunityLanguageLearning,theNaturalApproach,Suggestopedia,etc.InductionisusedfromAudio-lingualMethod,inwhichrulesare“caught”ratherthan“taught.”(Richard&Rodgers,1986)“Getstudentstolearnbyanalogy,notanalysis,”“Languageisasetofhabits,”and“Teachingthelanguage,notaboutthelanguage,”arepedagogicalcatchcrieswhenaudio-lingualmethodisthemostpopularasateachingmethod(Moulton,1963).Studentsmakeuseoftheirexperience,backgroundinformation,andtheninducerulesconsciouslyorunconsciously,whichassociatedwithself-directedrulediscovery,implicitinstruction.2.2TheoreticalBasisTherearedifferencesbetweendeductionandinduction.Deductionismoretraditional,butinductionispopularwiththeNewCurriculumStandard.Whilenomatterwhatthedifferencesare,methodsalwaysneedthesupportoftheories.Thispartexplainsthetheoreticalbasisfordeductionandinduction.2.2.1ConstructivismConstructivismisaphilosophicalviewpointaboutthenatureofknowing.Specifically,itrepresentsanepistemologicalstance.Therearemany"flavors"ofconstructivism,butoneprominenttheoristknownforhisconstructivistviewsisJeanPiaget.Piagetfocusedonhowhumansmakemeaninginrelationtotheinteractionbetweentheirexperiencesandtheirideas.Heconsideredhimselftobeageneticepistemologist,whichmeansheconsideredthisinteractioninrelationtohowhumansaresetupbytheirgeneticmakeuptodevelopintellectually.Hisviewstendedtofocusonhumandevelopmentinrelationtowhatisoccurringwithanindividualasopposedtodevelopmentthatisinfluencedbyotherhumans.Viewsthataremorefocusedonhumandevelopmentinthecontextofthesocialworldarealsoofmanyflavorsandincludethesocioculturalorsocio-historicalperspective.Theconceptofconstructivismhasinfluencedmanydisciplines,includingeducation,,psychology,thehistoryofscienceandsociology.Initsdevelopment,constructivismexaminedtheinteractionbetweenhumanexperiencesandtheirreflexesorbehavior-patterns.JeanPiagetcalledthesesystemsofknowledgeschemes.Thesearenottobeconfusedwith“schema,”atermthatcomesfromschematheory,whichiscomesfrominformation-processingperspectivesonhumancognition.WhereasPiaget"sschemesarecontentfree,schemata(thepluralofschema)inschematheoryareconcepts.Forexample,mosthumanshaveaschemafor“grandmother”or“egg”or“magnet.”Theimpactofconstructivismonteachingandlearninghasbecomeovert.ItisoneofPiaget’sworksthatemphasizetheconstructivenatureofthelearningprocess.Itisarevolutiontothetraditionalpedagogicalideology.Constructivismisdividedintovariousschools:radicalconstructivism,socialconstructivism,socio-culturalcognition,socialconstructivism,information-processingconstructivismandcyberneticsystem.Itisclaimed7 thateverylearnershouldnotbethepassivereceiverofthepassingknowledge,butconstructedhisownknowledgebygettingmeaningbasedontheirparticularexperience(ZhongQiquan,2001).Itrecognizeslearningprocessasconstructingmeaningabout,ormakingsenseof,theexperience.Studentsshouldbeactiveparticipantsinthedevelopmentoftheirownunderstanding.Learningactivitiesinclassarecharacterizedbyactiveinvolvement,inquiry,problemsolving,andcollaboratewithothers.Theteacher’srolesareaguide,afacilitator,andcooperator,resourceprovider,whoencouragesthestudentstochallenge,question,andformulatetheirownopinions,ideasandconclusions.Studentsarerenderedtobethecenteroftheclass,thesubjectsofthelanguagelessons.Classroomfocusshouldbeshiftedfromteacherstostudents.Constructivismrequiresthestudentstoactivelyinvolveintheirownlearningprocess.Students’autonomyandinitiativearesupported.Anderson(1995)saw“Learnerasactiveandsocialconstructorsofmeaning,andlearningasanactofconstructionthroughsocialinteractioninmanycontexts.”Solearningshouldbetakenplaceinthesituationthatisrealandmeaningfultothestudents.Whatismore,collaborativeconstructionofknowledgeamongstudentsisespeciallyemphasized.Theroleoftheteachersshouldbeoneof“guidesontheside”ratherthanthetraditional“sagesonthestage”.Itencourageseverylearnertoberesponsiblefortheirownlearningthroughdialogues,roleplayandtaskassignments.Cooperativegrouplearning⋯hadbeenshowntoresultinhigherachievement,littleornopsychologicalharm,andlesssegregation(Slavin,1996).2.2.2TheTask-basedTeachingTask-basedgrammar’steachingisdifferentfromtask-basedteachinginlistening,speakingandreading,becausegrammarisstillthecenteroftask-basedteaching.Thisisrefertoas“form-centered”task-basedteaching.Therearetwotypesofactivitiesin“form-centered”grammarteaching.Oneisanimplicitgrammaractivityinwhich;forexample,whenteachingpastsimpletense,theteachermayfirstletstudentstalkabouttheactivitiestheydidthedaybefore,andthenwritesentencesaboutthoseactivities,andcomparethedifferencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthem.Theotheroneisanexplicitcommunicativetask,thecontentofwhichisgrammarissues.Forexample,theteacheroffersflashcardswithbothcorrectandincorrectsentences.He/Sheasksstudentstoreadthem,thenchoosesthecorrectsentences,anddrawconclusionsonthegrammarrulesofthecorrectgrammarform.Task-basedteachingiswidelypromotedinEnglishlanguageteachingnowadays.ItisarecentlydevelopedapproachinlinewithCommunicativeLanguageTeaching.“ataskisarangeofworkplanswhichhavetheoverallpurposeoffacilitatinglanguagelearning–fromthesimpleandbriefexercisestomorecomplexandlengthyactivitiessuchasgroupproblem–solvingorsimulationsanddecision–making.”(Breen,1987)“Task-basedlanguageteachingisanapproachtothedesignoflanguagecoursesinwhichthepointofdepartureisnotanorderedlistoflinguisticitems.”DavidNunan(2001)thought,“Butacollectionoftasks.”Nunanconcludedthatallofthetasksinvolvecommunicativelanguageuseinwhichlearners’focusisonmeaningratherthanonform.He8 regardedtaskas:“apieceofclassroomworkwhichinvolveslearnersincomprehending,manipulating,producingorinteractinginthetargetlanguage.”Long(1985)definedtaskas“thehundredandonethingspeopledoineverydaylife,atwork,atplay,andin-between.”Task-basedteachingisthatteacherdesignvariouscommunicativetasksaccordingtotheteachingcontent,andthroughaccomplishingthosetasks,thestudentscanacquirelanguageknowledge,uselanguagetosolveproblems,whichis“learningbydoing”.Atthesametime,theirlanguageability,thinkingabilityandcommunicativecompetencecanbeimproved.Thetaskscancontributetowhole-persondevelopment–notjustlinguisticdevelopment.Task-basedapproachisakindofexperientialteaching.Learners’attentionisnotpaidonlanguageitself,butontheprocessoflearning,whichisoneoftheprinciplesoftask-basedteaching.Itemphasizesonlearner’sinvolvement,andinteractionbetweenstudentsandteachers,studentsandstudents,studentsandthecoursebook.Self-inspirationandself-discovery,ratherthanknowledgestorageinthebrain,areprominentlyfocused.Thisprocessbearsresemblancetothatofinductivelearning,whichletthestudentenjoylearningandachievetheresultsbythemselves.However,traditionalaspectsshouldnotbe.2.3StudiesonDeductionandInductionEversincethebirthofdeductionandinduction,theargumentsaboutthemhaveneverbeenstopped.Theargumentsarevarious,forexample,whetherthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachshouldbeapplied,orwhichoneismoreeffectiveonlearners’masteringgrammar.Inthissection,studies,abroadandhome,onthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachwillbeintroduced.2.3.1StudiesAbroadAgroupofscholarshaveputforwardvariousopinionsaboutdeductionandinduction.Therearemoreandmoreteachingmethodsappearintheclassroomsettings,anddeductionandinductionaremoreandmorewidelyused.Whethertheteachershaverealizeditornot,thetwomethodshavebeenanunspokengrammarteachingmethodinthefieldofforeignlanguageteaching.Inordertohelpstudentsunderstandthegrammaticalrulesmorepreciselyandfluently,teachersshoulddecidehowtoteachandhowtotakethespecificstepsintoactions(Byrd,1998).Inthefieldofsecondlanguagelearningresearch,theeffectivenessofgrammaticalinstructionhasbeenaconstantlydebatedtopic.Krashen’shypothesisontherelationbetweenthesuccessofgrammaticalinstructionandthecomplexityofthegrammaticalstructurehascreatedariseininterestinthistopic.Accordingtohis“nointerfacehypothesis”,simplestructurescouldbetaughtdeductively,whereascomplexonescanonlybeacquiredinductivelyandthuscannotbetaught.SomestudiesconfirmKrashen"sclaim.However,deGraaff(1997)arguesthatcomplexstructuresshouldbetaughtdeductivelytomakethemmorenoticeabletothelearner.Merelyofferinglanguageinputtothelearnerwouldnotbeenoughinthesecases.Ontheotherhand,inductiveinstructionwouldsufficeforsimplestructures.Thesedifferentviewsontherelationshipbetweencomplexityandinstructionformmightbepartlyduetothedifferentdefinitionsofthenotioncomplexityusedinthesestudies.However,asdeGraaffand9 Housen(2009)andSpadaandTomita(2010)putforward,moststudiesshowthatdeductiveinstructionisthemosteffectiveapproachregardlessofcomplexity.Fischer(1979)claimsthatsometeachersadopttheinductiveapproachwhentheyusetheaudio-lingualmethodandthedeductiveapproachwhenthecognitivemethod,whichisthesamewithShaffer’sopinion.Sometimes,students’findingouttherulesafterbeingexposedtothevastsentencesconnectedwiththetargetgrammarneedsomediscoveryactivitiesintheinductiveapproach(Wilson,2006),orthroughoralpracticetofinishthetask(Herron&Tomasello,1992).Agrowingnumberofresearchersbelievethatteachingshouldpayattentiontogrammar,basedonthis,theresearchersbegantoexplorebetterwaysofteachinggrammar.Overthepastfewdecades,manyEuropeanandAmericanscholarshavedonealotofgrammarteachingresearchattempts,boththeoreticalresearchesandempiricalresearches.Seliger(1975)conductedthefirststudyin1975.Thecontentofthestudywastheinvestigationonwhetherithaddifferenteffectswhenusingthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachinpre-nounmodifiersorder.Theresearchsubjectsweresixty-fiveadultstudents,whoweredividedintothreegroups,includingonecontrolgroup,whichhadnothingtodowiththestudybutlearnedasbeforeandtwoexperimentalgroups,whichweretaughtwithdifferentmethodandthestepsofthelessons.Onewasthedeductiveapproachthathadbeenmodified,andanotherwastheinductiveapproach.Theprocessoftheexperimentwastwolessons(onewasaboutthirtyminutes),andtwotests.Onthedayafterthesecondlesson,theimmediatetest,showingnoobviousdifferencebutthecontrolgroupworsethantheexperimentalgroups,wasdone;whiletheretentiontest,doneaboutthreeweekslaterrevealedthatthedeductivewasbetterthanthelefttwogroups.ThesecondstudyconductedbyAbraham(1985)wastoinvestigatewhetherthefield-independentEnglishlearnersasForeignLanguageadultscouldgetmorebenefitsfromtherule-orientedapproach.Theprocessoftheexperimentincludedtwolessons,whileonewasinthetraditionaldeductiveapproach,andanotherintheinductiveapproachandtwotests,thepre-testandthepost-testinordertocomparetheeffectsofthetwoapproaches.Theresultshowedthatthefield-independentwaslessbeneficialintheexample-orientedlessonbutdidbetterinthedeductivelessonandmostofthelearnerscoulddobetterinthedeductiveone.Shaffer(1989)carriedoutthethirdstudy.Hewasaimedtotestifythedifferenteffectsbetweentheinductiveapproachandthedeductiveone.Thestudyobjectswere319learnerswhoweredividedintotwogroupsfromthreedifferentseniorhighschools.Thesametencomparativesentenceswereshowntoallthestudentswiththeruleswrittenclearlyonthepaperofthedeductiveone,whiletheothersneededtowritethegrammardownaccordingtotheirownperception.Thetwotests,theimmediatetestandtheretentiontestshowednodistinctdifferencebetweenthetwo,whiletheinductivewasalittlebetter.HerronandTomasello(1992)didanexperiment,whosepurposewasthesamewithShaffer’s,butthecontentofitwastenFrenchgrammaritemsandtheexperimentalsubjectsweretwenty-sixstudentsatthebeginning-levellastingforawholesemester.Theydividedthestudentsintotwogroups,oneofwhichwastheinductiveapproachandanotherdeductiveone10 withoutexception.However,theyaddedoraldrillswhichweregivenoutatthebeginningoftheclassroomsettingintothelessonswhichwastaughtintheinductiveapproachencouragingthestudentstofindouttherulesontheirownandanotherattheendoftheclassroomsettingwhichwastaughtinthedeductiveapproachasthepracticeofthegrammarstatement.Theexperimentincludedtwotests,thepost-testontheseconddayafterthegrammaticalstructureexplanationandthedelayedtestafteroneweek.Theresearchdeclaredthattheinductiveapproachwasmoreappropriatefortheadultlearners.Thefifthstudy,carriedoutbyRosaandO’Neill(1999),investigatedtheeffectsofthetwoapproachesamongsixty-sevenadultlearnerswholearnedSpanishbuttookEnglishasthefirstlanguage,andduringtheresearch,theirattentionwasfocusedintheproblem-solvingtask.FivegrammaticalitemsinSpanishexplainedexplicitlyindegreesandtwotests,theimmediateandthepostonewithtwenty-twoexamplesonthepaperwereincludedintheprocessoftheexperiment.Theresultrevealedthattherewasnosignificantdifferenteffectonthetwogroups,theonewhoseinstructionwaslessexplicitandanothermoreexplicit.ThenewestonewastheresearchbyErlam(2003),whowasaimedtosixty-nineadultstudentsdividedintothreegroups,similartoSeliger’s.Theinductiveonedemandedthestudentstochooseandclarifythesentencesstatedwithlittleimplicitnessintheformofmetalanguageandthen,tellthereasonfortheiranswers.Meanwhile,astothedeductiveone,studentsweregiventhecontentclarifiedwellandthecorrectionfeedbackwasimportant.Theresult,shownthroughfourdifferenttestsonlanguageskills,claimedthattheinductivegroupwasworsethanthedeductiveoneontheaspectsofunderstandingandoutputwithmoreuncertainty.Fromtheexperimentsabove,wecanconcludethattheapplicationoftheinductiveandthedeductiveapproachescanbesummarizedinthefollowingway.Thedeductiveapproachisakindofapproachinwhichtheteachersshouldleaveaholisticimpressionofthegrammaticalrulesonthestudentsfirstlyandshowmanysentencesassociatedwiththetargetcontentclosely,whichisrelatedwithGrammarTranslationMethod.Ifyougotosomeplacesofinterest,youcanoverlookthewholesceneryfromtheabove,andthenenjoytherivers,mountains,plantsandsoon.Specifically,firstofall,therulesortheoriestheteachersdescribeareusuallyobscure,abstract,andindigestiblewhentakingthestudents’feelingintoconsiderationandthen,theyarediscernedbythelearnersstepbystepinadeeperway.Aftertheteacher’sexplanationandgeneralization,thestudentsareshownlotsofsentencesconnectedtothetargetgrammar.Itseemsthattheteacherhascontrolledthewholeclass,namely,teacher-centered.Meanwhile,teachersshouldhavesolidtheoreticalfoundation.Andthereasoningcharacteristicisfromthegeneraltothespecific.Thelanguagefocusisthestructureofthetargetgrammar.Theteacherwillcorrectthestudentsimmediatelyandovertlyiftheymakeanymistakesduringtheprocessofthisapproach.Ifateacherfirstlyshowssufficientexamplesassociatedwiththetargetgrammarcloselyatthebeginningoftheclass,andthentheteacherasksstudentstoabstracttherulesorprinciplesfromtheexamplesontheirownbyverbalizationorwritingthemdown,itisnamed11 theinductiveapproach.Inoneword,itgoesfromthespecifictogeneral.Asimilecanbeusedtodescribethedeductiveapproach.Ifyougotoaplaceofinterestagainandyouenjoytherivers,themountains,theplantsinorderfirstly,youwillinducethefeaturesofthewholescenery.Andthen,youclimetothepeakofthejoy!Andatthesametime,astotheinductiveapproach,thesufficienttimeshouldbeprovided.Therearefewwaystoshowtheexamples.Theycanbeputintothemeaningfulcontextsandtheteachercanletstudentsdiscovertherulesorprinciplesingroups;oryoucanputupsomequestionsatthebeginningoftheclassandthenshowthesamplesofthelanguage.Thenstudentscansolvetheproblemsinpairsundertheteachers’guidance.Inconclusion,theinductiveoneisanapproachwherethelearnersareexposedtoampleexampleswhichisassociatedwiththetargetgrammarcloselyatfirst,andthenfindordiscovertherulesontheirownconsciouslyorsubconsciously.Thestudents’activeparticipationshouldbeputonthefirstplaceofthelist,whilethedeductiveoneisanapproachinwhichtheteachersexplainthetargetgrammaticalrulesexplicitlyandclearlyfollowedbythesufficientexamplesandpractice.2.3.2StudiesatHomeChina’s5000-year-longcivilizationhascontributedinsignificantmeasuretotheknowledgeandculturalrichesofhumanity,andChina’sfurtherdevelopmentandcontributionneedstheexperienceavailablefromtherestoftheworld.Thecriticalmission,therefore,ofEnglisheducationinChinaistoassistChinaincomprehendingtheworldbetterandtheworldcomprehendingChinabetter.Englisheducation,thus,isvitaforChina’sdevelopment.WhetherthecurrentEnglisheducationinChinacanmeettheneedsforthedevelopmentofthestateandsocietyisnowverymuchindoubt.SoEnglishteachersandresearchershavebeenendowedwithamissiontosearchformoreeffectiveapproachesandmethodsforEnglisheducation.InthedevelopmentofgrammarteachinginChina,grammartheoriesstudieshavemadeagreatcontribution,too.Aboutgrammarteaching,GuiShichun(2004)sharedhisopinionthatgrammarisnotafixedrulesaboutstructuresbutameaningful,flexiblesystem.Grammarteachingrequireslearnerstoparticipateinsomecommunicativetasks.Inthestudyofpsychologyoflearning,JiaGuanjie(2007)proposedsomesuggestionsongrammarteaching:first,grammarteachingshouldbeinteresting;second,grammarshouldbelearnedinthepractice;atlast,theteachingmethodshouldbethecombinationofdeductionandinduction.ZhangRen(2004),GaoHaiying(2006),DaiWeidong(2006),andLiuZhencong(2006),whopositedthatgrammarshouldbebasedonthecognitiveperspective,thoughtimplicitinstructionalapproachshouldn’tbeseparatedfromtheexplicitone.LuoLisheng(2004)analyzedthecharacteristicsandthefaultsthatexistinGrammarTranslationMethodwhichadaptsitselftothenewlinguisticperspectivesandstillplaysanimportantroleinteaching.Suchstudiesaremoretheoreticalthanexperimentalinourcountry,whichcouldn’tgivesomeenlightenmenttoimprovegrammarteachingandmeanwhile,studiesabroadwhichmaynot12 beappropriateforgrammarteachinginourcountrycan’tbeimitated.So,itisnecessarytoidentifywhichapproachisbetterforChineseseniorhighschoolstudentsthroughtheexperiment.13 ChapterThreeResearchMethodologyInordertoenhancetheEnglishlevelofChinesestudents,agreatdealofscholarsarelookingformoreeffectiveapproachesforgrammarteachingonandon.Thescholarsintenttoclearthedoubtsthroughbothrelevanttheoriesandstudies,butnoconsistentopinionshavebeenoffered.Thereareavarietyofexpositionsmentionedbythescholars.Somescholarsholdtheviewthatitisbettertousethedeductiveapproachwhileothersholdtheoppositeopinions,thatis,inductivemethodisbetterthandeductive.Ontheotherhand,somepeopleclaimthatthereisnodifferencebetweenthetwoapproaches.Accordingtotheliteraturereview,boththedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachareeffectiveandindispensableinforeignlanguageteaching.Butthiscannotgivetheteacherssomedirectadviceaboutwhichapproachismoresuitableunderwhatcircumstance.Thiscannotgivesomeenlightenmenttoimprovegrammarteachinginseniorhighschools.Meanwhilewecanlearnfromtheabroadstudies,butwecannotimitatethem,becausethesestudiesmaynotbeproperforgrammarteachinginChina.Sothispaperistohelpteachersandstudentsfindoutwhenandhowtousethetwomethodseffectively.Thischapterconsistsofthefollowingsections:theresearchquestions,subjects,instrumentsexperimentproceduresanddatacollection.3.1HypothesisandResearchQuestionsItiseasilyobservedthatboththedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachareeffectivemethodinthefieldofforeignlanguageteaching,butwecannotsayeitherofthetwoissupposedtobeabetterteachingmethodthantheother.Whenteachinggrammar,teachersshouldtakethenewdirectionofaimingatgrammaticalconsciousness-raising.Onewaytoachievethisistohavelearnersdiscovergrammarrulesinductively,thatis,intheinductiveapproach,theteacher"sjobbeingtofacilitatethisgrammardiscoveryprocessbyprovidingappropriatetechniques.Inthisway,students’interest,storedknowledgeandexperiencecanbemobilized,whichcandevelopstudents’abilitiesandskillsofself-discovery.Ontheotherhand,thedeductiveapproachhasitsownadvantages.Whendealingwiththecomplexandobscuregrammaticalrules,thedeductiveapproachplaysanveryimportantrole.WiththeimplementationoftheEnglishNewCurriculumStandard,theinductiveapproachhasbeenhighlyadvocatedbutitisunwisetoembraceittotallyinallthesituations.Whenemployingthetwoapproaches,teachersaresupposedtotaketheseintoconsideration,thecontext,students’learningstylesandtheknowledgedifficulty.Thisstudyisacomparativestudyaimingtocomparetheeffectivenessofthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachwhichareappliedinthegrammarteachinginseniorhighschool.Weuseateachingexperiment,questionnaires,andinterviewstofindoutwhatwewanttoknow.Herearethehypothesisofthestudy:1.Asisoftenrepeated,thedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproacharetwomainmethodsinEnglishgrammarteaching.Thedeductiveapproachisconsideredastraditional14 grammarteaching.Itbeginsfromthegeneralrulestothespecificexamples.Itsuitsthelearnersofhighmotives.Comparedwiththedeductiveapproach,theinductiveapproachisnewer.Itstartsfromspecific,detailedexamplestothegeneralrules.Itisadiscoveryprogress.2.Whenappliedtoforeignlanguageteaching,thedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproacharefrequentlyusedbyteachersintheteachingofgrammar.3.Teachersandstudentspreferwhichapproach,deductionorinduction,inwhatsituationisdecidedbymanyfactors.Forteachers,ifthestudentsismorecleverandthelanguageknowledgeiseasier,theytendtochoosetheinductiveapproach,becauseinductionisbeneficialtodevelopstudents’languageabilitiesandskillsoflistening,speaking,readingandwriting,likeanalogy,generalization,habitformationandcommunicativeapplication.Ontheotherpart,teacherswillpreferthedeductiveapproachiflearnersarematureandlanguageknowledgeiscomplex.Asforstudents,inthedeductiveapproachteaching,theyare“receiver”andtheyjustlistentotheteachersandwritedownwhattheteacherssay.However,theinductiveapproacharousesstudents’activethinkingandtheirinterest.4.Whichofthetwoapproachesismoreproductivedependsonthelearners.Foryounglearners,theinductiveapproachisoftenthemostproductive.Astoadults,studentsmayappreciateexplanationofgrammaticalrules,becauseadultsarebetteratunderstandingabstractconcepts.Inthissituation,deductiveteachingofgrammarismoreproductive.Therearethreequestionsraisedbytheauthorofthispaper:1．WhichofthetwoapproachesofinductionanddeductionismoreoftenusedinEnglishteachinginseniorhighschool?2．WhenlearningEnglishgrammar,whichapproachdostudentsinseniorhighschoolprefer?Inductionordeduction?3．Whichapproachofinductionanddeductionismoreeffectiveingrammarteachinginseniorhighschool?3.2SubjectsTheresearchsubjectsarestudentsoftwoclassesfromaseniorhighschoolinUlanhot.Thereare30classestaughtby16Englishteachersinthisseniorhighschool.Thetwoexperimentclassesarefromthe30classesandoneisclass10,theotheroneisclass18.Thereare32studentsinclass10,15girlsand17boys.Thereare33studentsinclass18,18girlsand15boys.Thestudents’agesrangefromsixteenyearsoldtoeighteenyearsold.ThetwoclasseshavethesameEnglishteacher,thatis,theauthorofthispaperandtheyareparallelclassesparticipatingintheexperiment.Whywechoosethesetwoclasses?BecausethestudentsfromthetwoclassesareatthesameEnglishlevelandtheyhavethesameeducationalbackground.Thestudents’lasttermfinalexaminationscoresareusedtoexaminetheirEnglishlevelandafteracarefulexamination,wefindtheyareatthesameEnglishlevel,whichguaranteestheexperiment’svalidity.Class10ischosenastheexperimentalgroupandclass18isthecontrolgroup.Theexperimentalgroupistaughtbyusingtheinductivemethodwhilethecontrolgroupusesthetraditionalmethod,thatis,thedeductivemethod.Thetextbooksandworkbooksareusedinthetwoclasses.Thegrammarcontentthattheauthorchooseisthesubjunctivemood,whichisinSeniorBook6.15 Table3.1InformationoftheStudentsthetwoClassesClassTotalBoysGirlsYearsoflearningEnglishAveragescoresoflasttermEC3217158-10years101.91CC3315188-10years102.303.3InstrumentsInstrumentsfortheresearcharethreetests,aquestionnaire,andaninterview.Eachofthethreetestscontainsfiftymultiplechoicequestionsandtheyaregiventoclass10andclass18separately.Questionnairesaregiventothestudentsintheexperimentalgroupandthecontrolgroupinordertoinvestigatethegrammarteachinginseniorhighschoolandtheeffectsofthetwoapproaches.What’smore,aninterviewisconductedtoknowaboutteachers’feelingsaboutthetwoapproaches.3.3.1TestsThreetestsaregiventothestudentsintheexperimentalgroupandcontrolgroup.Theyarethepre-test(SeeAppendixFive),theimmediatetest(SeeAppendixSix)andthedelayedtest(SeeAppendixSeven).Theitemsinthetestpapersarealltypicalitemsfromtheinternetandgrammarbooks,andalsothetestsarecarefullycheckedbytheexperiencedteacherswhohavebeenteachingforabouttenyearssothatthestudentscouldacceptthedifficultydegreeofthetests.Thethreetestsareallaboutthetargetgrammar,subjunctivemood,andarecomposedoffiftymultiplechoicequestions.Atfirst,thepre-testisgiventothestudentsinthetwoclassesthedaybeforethelessonsbegin.Thenumberofthepre-testpaperis65,whichareallcollectedafterthetest.Thepurposeofthepre-testistoverifyifthetwoclassesareatthesamelevelandhowmuchthestudentsinthetwoclasseshaveknownaboutthetargetgrammar,subjunctivemood.Becausethetargetgrammarmayhavebeenacquiredbythestudentsbeforefragmentarily.Soitisnecessarytomakeitclear.Secondly,theimmediatetestpaperisgiventothestudentsthedayafterthelessons.Itcontainsthetargetgrammarthatstudentshavealreadybeenfamiliarwith.Itisinordertotestthedifferenteffectivenessofthetwoapproacheswhichareusedinthetwoclassesseparately.Thirdly,itcomestothedelayedtest.Itisconductedonthedayonemonthaftertheexperiment.Itisalsocomposedoffiftymultiplechoicequestions,whichisthesameastheformertwotests.Its’purposeisthetestifythedelayedeffectsofthetwoapproaches.3.3.2QuestionnaireAquestionnaireisusedduringtheexperiment.Sincethestudentshavebeeninschoolforoneandahalfyear,theyhaveformedtheirownwaysofstudyandhaveformedanimpressionontheirEnglishteacherandtheteachingmethodstheteacheruses.Onthiscondition,aquestionnaireisusedtoinvestigatethestudents’feelingaboutEnglishgrammarandtheteacher’steachingmethods.Eachquestionhasfiveanswers.Fromquestion1toquestion7,thereisjustonesuitableanswer.Butforquestion8thereismorethanoneanswersand16 question9isanopenquestion.Thequestionsonthequestionnaireareasfollowing:Table3.2QuestionsontheQuestionnaireNo.Question1.HowdoyoufeelaboutyourcommandofEnglishgrammar?2.AreyouinterestedinEnglishgrammar?3.ComparedwithotherEnglishclasses,doyoulikeEnglishgrammar?4.DoyoulearnnewEnglishgrammarundertheguidanceoftheteacheroryoudoitdependingonyourowncomprehension?5.WhenteachingnewEnglishgrammar,willyourteachergiveyoutherulesdirectlyorhe/shewillletyousummarizetheruleswithmanyexamples?6.Whichwaydoyouprefer?Theteachergivesyoutherulesdirectlyoryousummarizetherulesonyourownundertheguidanceoftheteacher.7.WhichwaydoyouthinkcanimproveyourEnglishlevel?Theteachergivesyoutherulesdirectlyoryousummarizetherulesonyourownundertheguidanceoftheteacher.8.Whataretheeffectsofdeductiveteachingmethodandinductiveteachingmethod?9.WhatkindofEnglishgrammarteachingdoyouhopefor?Itisanopenquestionwithoutanswers.3.3.3InterviewsThereisaninterview.Aftertheteachingexperiment,aninterviewwiththefiveEnglishteachersofthishighschoolisconducted,whosepurposeistoinvestigatetheteachingmethodsthattheteachersemploywhenteachingEnglishgrammarandtheeffectsofthemethods.3.4ExperimentProceduresThisexperimentisnotseparatefromthedailyteachingpractice,butitispartofit.Thendthwholeresearchlastsforabouttwomonths,fromNovember2,2015toJanuary4,2016.ththTheteachingexperimentlastsforaboutonemonth,fromNovember9,2015toDecember4,2015.BecausetheauthoristheEnglishteacherofthetwoselectedclasses,theauthoristheconductoroftheexperiment.Thesubjectsoftheexperimentaresixty-fiveseniortwostudentsfromahighschoolinXing’anMeng,InnerMongolia.Thestudentsinclass10aretaughtbyinductiveteachingapproachandclass18istaughtbythedeductiveapproach.Theexperimentconsistsofthreetests,aquestionnaireandaninterview.3.4.1Pre-experimentSomepreparationsaremadebeforetheexperiment,suchastheteachingplans,thecomparisonoftheirgradesofthelasttermfinalexaminationandthepre-test.Beforetheexperiment,weanalyzethesestudents’EnglishscoresinthetwoclassesinthelastfinalexaminationoftheSpringSemester.Afteracarefulanalysis,wefindtheaveragescoreofclass10is101.91andthatofclass18is102.30(thetotalscoreis150).Thisshowsthatthereisnoobviousdivergencebetweenthetwoclasses.Wecallthispre-evaluation.17 ndThenitcomestothepre-test,whichisdoneonNovember2,2015.Its’purposeistoseeifthestudentsinthetwoselectedclassesareatthesamelevelonthetargetgrammar,thesubjunctivemood,becausesomeofthestudentsmayhavepickedupthetargetgrammarbefore.Thepre-testismadeoffiftymultiple-choicequestionsaboutthetargetgrammar,subjunctivemood,witheachoftheitemsbeingworthyof1point.Thepre-testisconductedinthetwoclasses,theexperimentalgroupandthecontrolgroup,atthesametimeandissupervisedbythehead-teachersofthetwoclass.Thesubjectsarerequiredtofinishthetestin20minutesandtheymustn’tseekhelpfromothers.Cheatingisalsoforbiddenduringthetest.Orthestudentswhobreaktherulesareaskedtodothetestagain.Alltogether,therearesixty-fivestudentsparticipatingthepre-test,sosixty-fivetestpapersarecollected.Ifthescoresofthestudentsofthepre-testaresimilar,thereisnoobviousdivergencebetweenthetwoclassesandthentheexperimentwillbeconducted.Inthetwoclasses,classes10servesastheexperimentalgroup(EC)andclasses18ischosenasthecontrolgroup(CC).Studentsinexperimentalgrouparetaughtbyinductionandthoseincontrolgrouparetaughtbydeduction,andthetwogroupsaretaughtbythesameteacher,thatis,theauthorofthispaper.3.4.2ExperimentTheexperimentisthemostimportantpartofthewholeprocess.Itlastsforaboutoneththmonth,fromNovember9,2015toDecember4,2015.TheexperimentbeginsonNovemberth9,2015.Beforetheexperiment,thelessonsandtheteachingplanshavebeencarefullypreparedbytheteacher.TeachingplanAisusedinexperimentalgroupbecauseitisamodeloftheinductiveteachingapproach.TeachingplanBisdeductiveteachingapproach,soitisusedinthecontrolgroup.Theexperimentalgroup,thatis,class10istaughtbytheinductiveteachingapproach.Eachofthelessonsiscomposedoffivesteps.Here,inthispaper,theauthorjustlistoneexampleoftheteachingplan.theThefirststepisthelead-in.TheteacherbeginsthelessonwithanEnglishsong,IfIWereaBoy.Itiseasierforthestudentstogetinvolvedandknowwhattheyaregoingtolearn.Thenthestudentsaredividedintosixgroups.Fourgroupshavefivestudentsandtwogroupshavesixstudents.Thirdly,thehand-outswithexamplesofsubjunctivemoodsentencesonaregiventothestudents.Thestudentsareaskedtofindoutthesimilaritiesanddifferencesofthesentencesandwritethemdown.Andalsotheyshouldfindoutthegrammaticalrulesthatgovernthesesentences.Duringthisprocess,studentscandiscusswitheachother.Theteacherwalksaroundtheclassroomofferinghelpwhenitisnecessary.Fifteenminuteslater,thestudentsareaskedtosharewhattheyhavefoundwiththeirclassmates.Andtheteacherwillmakesomesupplements.Anditisthelaststep.Thestudentshandinthehand-outs.Theteacheraskthestudentstomakesomesentencesundertheguidanceoftherulesthattheyhavejustfound.Class18isthecontrolgroupwhichadoptedthedeductiveapproach.Therearethreestepsineachlesson.Thefirststepisthesameastheexperimentalgroup,buttheteachertellthestudentswhattheyaregoingtolearnissubjunctivemood.Thentheteacherexplainthegrammaticalrulesofsubjunctivemoodstepbystepandalsosheusessomeexample18 sentencestomaketherulesclear.Thestudentsareaskedtowritedownwhattheteachersaid.Finally,aftertheteacher’sexplanation,thestudentsareaskedtodosomeexercisesundertheguidanceoftherulesthattheteacherhavetoldthem.3.4.3Post-experimentTheimmediatetestwhichcontainsfiftymultiplechoicequestionsiscarriedoutonthethdayafterthelastlesson,thatis,onDecember4,2015.Itisalsocarefullysupervisedbythehead-teachersandtherulesarethesametothepre-test.Andalsoonthesameday,theinterviewwiththefiveEnglishteachersisheldonebyonetoinvestigatetheirteachingmethodsandtheeffectsoftheteachingmethod.thOnJanuary4,2016,onemonthaftertheexperiment,thedelayedtestisconductedinthetwoselectedclasses.Afigureisusedtoillustratethetime-lineoftheexperiment.Table3.3Time-lineoftheExperimentStagesoftheDateexperimentndPre-experimentNovember2,2015:pre-evaluation,pre-testththExperimentNovember9,2015toDecember4,2015thPost-experimentDecember4,2015:theimmediatetest,interviewthJanuary4,2016:thedelayedtest3.5DataCollectionAllthedatacollectedfromtheteachingexperiment,thequestionnairesandtheinterviewwillbepresentedandanalyzedbySPSS19.0aswell.TheresultsofT-testareresortedtodemonstratethedifferencesbetweentheexperimentalgroupsandthecontrolgroup.Datafromthepre-test,theimmediatetestandthedelayedtestoftheteachingexperimentistoreflecttheeffectivenessofdeductionandinductioninstruction.Informationgotfromthequestionnairestellsthestudents’feelingandpreferencetothetworeversedteachingmethodsingrammar.Theinterviewinvestigatesteachers’teachingexperienceandtheirideasaboutgrammarteachingmethods.19 ChapterFourDataAnalysisandDiscussionInthischapter,first,thestatisticsofthetestsfromtheexperimentareanalyzedandcompared.Secondly,weanalyzethedatafromthequestionnairestoknowaboutstudents’attitudetowardsthetwoteachingmethods.Thirdly,theinformationgainedfromtheinterviewswiththeteachersareanalyzed.Andfinally,itisadiscussionoftheteachingexperiment.4.1DataAnalysisoftheTestsTherearefourtestsintheexperiment,thefinalexaminationoftheSpringSemester,thepre-test,theimmediatetestandthedelayedtest.AllthedatafromthefourtestsisanalyzedandcomparedbySPSS19.0.Thedatafromtheanalysisnotonlyprovesthedifferenteffectofthetwoapproaches,thatis,thedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach,butalsothemoreeffectivewayofteachingEnglishgrammarinseniorhighschool.4.1.1DataAnalysisoftheFinalExaminationoftheSpringSemesterFirst,thescoresofthefinalexaminationareanalyzedtoknowifthereisobviousdivergencebetweenthetwoclassesbeforetheexperiment.Thefollowingtable(SeeTable4.1)isthescoresofthefinalexam.Table4.1ScoresoftheFinalExaminationoftheSpringSemesterClass10Class18No.Scores(150’)No.Scores(150’)1701802712963943108411649251275706106613471127127898811291109110101131087117211911210512721380139214961410415108151151691169517731713620 18134181131912719107201122011121110217422872211223912397241162411325127251052610626110271122773289828125291102911430113309831713110632105321273370Then,itcomestotheanalysisofthescores.Thefollowingtablesarethecomparisonresultsofthetwotests.Table4.2GroupStatisticsoftheScoresoftheFinalExamClassNMeanStd.DeviationStd.ErrorMean1032101.9117.8533.1561833102.3018.3193.189Table4.3IndependentSampleT-testfortheScoresoftheFinalExamLevene’sTestforEqualityofT-testforEqualityofMeansVariancesSig.MeanStd.Error95%ConfidenceFSig.tdf(2-tailed)DifferenceDifferenceIntervaloftheDifferenceLowerUpperScoreEqual.015.902-.08863.930-.3974.488-9.3668.573VariancesassumedEqual-.08862.998.930-.3974.487-9.3638.569VariancesnotassumedAccordingtotable4.2,themeanscoreofclass10is101.91andthatofclass18is102.30.Themeanscoresofthetwoclassareveryclose.Thistellsusthatingeneral,theEnglishlevel21 ofthetwoclassesarethesame.Instatistics,thestandarddeviationisameasurethatisusedtoquantifytheamountofvariationordispersionofasetofdatavalues.Alowstandarddeviationindicatesthatthedatapointstendtobeclosetothemean(alsocalledtheexpectedvalue)oftheset,whileahighstandarddeviationindicatesthatthedatapointsarespreadoutoverawiderrangeofvalues.Thestandarddeviationofclass10is17.853andthatofclass18is18.319whichmayindicatethescoresofthestudentsaredispersiveandtheirEnglishlevelareuneven.Intable4.3,Levene’sTestforEqualityofVariancesshowsthatthetwovarianceshavenosignificantdifference(F=.015,P=.902>0.05),sothedatainthefirstoftheT-testforEqualityofMeansareadopted,t=-.088,df=63,P(2-tailed)=.930.TheindependentsampleT-testshowsthatP=0.902(>0.05)whichindicatesthereisnosignificantdifferenceintheirEnglishlevelofthetwoclassesbeforetheexperiment.Wecanchoosethetwoclassesasexperimentsubjects.4.1.2DataAnalysisofthePre-testSecondly,weanalyzedthescoresofthepre-testtoinvestigatehowmuchthestudentshaveknownaboutthetargetgrammar-subjunctivemood.Thefollowingtableisthescoresofthepre-test.4.4ScoresofthePre-testClass10Class18No.Scores（50’）No.Scores（50’）1241252232223213204264215215246196197207188198179199201016101811171117121812161317131714201420151915191618161817121718181518161919191722 201720172118211922182219231923192417241825162517261826162720271928192818291729183014301731183117321732213319Thefollowingtablesarethecomparisonresultsofthepre-test.Table4.5GroupStatisticsoftheScoresofthePre-testClassNMeanStd.DeviationStd.ErrorMean103218.472.724.481183318.672.116.368Table4.6IndependentSampleT-testfortheScoresofthePre-testLevene’sTestforEqualityofT-testforEqualityofMeansVariancesSig.MeanStd.Error95%ConfidenceFSig.tdf(2-tailed)DifferenceDifferenceIntervaloftheDifferenceLowerUpperScoreEqual.773.383-.32863.744-.198.604-1.4051.009VariancesassumedEqual-.32658.500.745-.198.606-1.4111.015VariancesnotassumedFromtable4.5,wecanseethatthemeanscoreofclass10is18.47andthemeanscoreofclass18is18.67.Themeanscoresofthetwoclassesarenothigh,forthetotalscoreis50,iftheycanpass,theirscoresmustbehigherthan30,whichtellsusthattheyknowlittleaboutthetargetgrammar.Thestandarddeviationofclass10is2.724andthatofclass18is2.116.Accordingtothedefinitionofstandarddeviation,thestandarddeviationsofthetwoclassare23 lowwhichmayindicatethatthescoresofthestudentsinthetwoclassesareintensiveandareclosetothemeanscore.Thisalsotestifythatthestudentsknownothingaboutthesubjectivemood.Intable4.6,Levene’sTestforEqualityofVariancesshowsthatthetwovarianceshavenosignificantdifference(F=.773,P=.383>0.05),sothedatainthefirstoftheT-testforEqualityofMeansareadopted,t=-.328,df=63,P(2-tailed)=.744.TheindependentsampleT-testshowsthatP=0.383(>0.05),soitcanbeconcludedthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoclassesandthesubjunctivemoodcanbechosenasthetargetgrammar.4.1.3DataAnalysisoftheImmediateTestThirdly,itcomestotheanalysisoftheimmediatetest.Weanalyzethescoresoftheimmediatetesttoseetheeffectsoftheteachingexperiment.Thefollowingtableisthescoresoftheimmediatetestofthetwoclasses.4.7ScoresoftheImmediateTestClass10Class18No.Scores（50’）No.Scores（50’）135141233233331334432432534531630629729727832830930931102910291128113212301234132713311430143015301529162916281729172718351832192719332028203321312130222922342334233124 2428243125322533263126322729272928332828292929313036303031283132323332333342Thefollowingtablesarethedataanalysisoftheimmediatetest.Table4.8GroupStatisticsoftheScoresoftheImmediateTestClassNMeanStd.DeviationStd.ErrorMean103230.662.458.434183331.583.224.561Table4.9IndependentSampleT-testfortheScoresoftheImmediateTestLevene’sTestforEqualityofT-testforEqualityofMeansVariancesSig.MeanStd.Error95%ConfidenceFSig.tdf(2-tailedDifferenceDifferenceIntervalofthe)DifferenceLowerUpperScoreEqual.107.745-1.29163.201-.920.712-2.343.504VariancesassumedEqual-1.29659.729.200-.920.712-2.339.500VariancesnotassumedFromtable4.8,themeanscoreofclass10is30.66,andthemeanscoreofclass18is31.58.Wecanseethatthemeanscoreofclass18isalittlehigherthanclass10,whichmayindicateclass18,taughtinthedeductiveapproach,isbetterthanclass10,taughtintheinductiveapproach.Thestandarddeviationofclass10is2.458andthatofclass18is3.224.Thestandarddeviationofclass18isalittlehigherthanthatofclass10whichtellsthatthescoresofthestudentsinclass18ismoredispersivethanthatofclass10.Intable4.9,Levene’sTestforEqualityofVariancesshowsthatthetwovarianceshavenosignificantdifference(F=.107,P=.745>0.05),sothedatainthefirstoftheT-testforEqualityofMeansareadopted,t=-1.291,df=63,P(2-tailed)=.201.Theindependentsample25 T-testshowsthatP=0.745(>0.05).Sothereisnoobviousdifferencebetweenthetwoclassescanbeconcludedfromthedataanalysis.4.1.4DataAnalysisoftheDelayedTestFinally,weanalyzetheresultofthedelayedtestwhosepurposeistheseethedelayedeffectsoftheteachingexperiment.Thefollowingtableisthescoresofthedelayedtest.4.10ScoresoftheDelayedTestClass10Class18No.Scores(50’)No.Scores(50’)1441362352343343404344335355356306317327308348309339311036103011301132123612321333133414351431153415311635164217321730183218321937193020322033213321322237223023302330243124342532254426402634273227322841283629312935304830313134313326 324332323334Thefollowingtablesarethedataanalysisofthedelayedtest.Table4.11GroupStatisticsoftheScoresoftheDelayedTestClassNMeanStd.DeviationStd.ErrorMean103234.844.259.753183333.153.401.592Table4.12IndependentSampleT-testfortheScoresoftheDelayedTestLevene’sTestforEqualityofT-testforEqualityofMeansVariancesSig.MeanStd.Error95%ConfidenceFSig.tdf(2-tailed)DifferenceDifferenceIntervaloftheDifferenceLowerUpperScoreEqual.929.3391.77363.0811.692.954-.2153.600VariancesassumedEqual1.76759.252.0821.692.985-.2243.609VariancesnotassumedFromtable4.11,themeanscoreofclass10is34.84andthatofclass18is33.15.Intheimmediatetest,class18’smeanscore(31.58)isalittlehigherthanclass10(30.66).Thedelayedtestisconductedonemonthaftertheexperiment,anditspurposeistoseethelong-termeffectsofthetwoapproaches.Fromthedataanalysisoftheresultsofthedelayedtest,wecanconcludethatclass10outperformsclass18inthedelayedtest,whichmayindicatethatinthedelayedtest,theinductiveapproachisbetterthanthedeductiveapproach.Wecanalsoconcludethattheinductiveapproachisbetterthanthedeductiveapproachinthelong-termperspective.Thestandarddeviationofclass10is4.259andthatofclass18is3.401.Thestandarddeviationofclass10isalittlehigherthanclass18whichtellsthescoreofthestudentsinclass10ismoredispersivethanclass18.Intable4.12,Levene’sTestforEqualityofVariancesshowsthatthetwovarianceshavenosignificantdifference(F=.929,P=.339>0.05),sothedatainthefirstoftheT-testforEqualityofMeansareadopted,t=1.773,df=63,P(2-tailed)=.081.TheindependentsampleT-testshowsthatP=.339,whichshowsnoobviousdifferenceexistsinthetwogroups.4.2DataAnalysisoftheQuestionnairesInthispart,tablesareusedtoillustratetheoutcomesofthequestionnaire.Accordingtothedatafromthequestionnaire,students’attitudestowardsEnglishgrammar,theirpreference27 forthetwoteachingapproaches,deductionandinduction,willbeclearforus.Andalsotheteachers’teachingmethodscanalsobeinvestigated.Table4.13TheResultsofQuestionOne1.HowdoyoufeelaboutyourcommandofEnglishgrammar?ClassVerygoodGoodNotbadPoorVerypoor105%35%40%10%10%187%38%36%8%11%Accordingtotable4.13,inansweringquestionone,inclass10,35percentofthestudentsthinktheirEnglishisgood;40percentofthestudentsclaimthattheirEnglishlevelisnotbad;intotal,thereare20percentofstudentsthinktheirEnglishispoorandonly5percentofthestudentsareconfidentabouttheirEnglish.Inclass18,thepercentofstudentswhoseEnglishisatthenormallevelisabout74%;19%studentsthinktheirEnglishispoorandonly7percentofthestudentsareconfidentabouttheirEnglish.Fromthedata,wecanconcludethatmostofthestudentsareatthenormallevel,butweshouldalsopayattentiontostudentswhoseEnglishlevelispoor.Table4.14TheResultsofQuestionTwo2.AreyouinterestedinEnglishgrammar?ClassVeryInterestedJustsosoNotDislikeinterestedinterested1012%35%25%18%10%1815%36%28%10%11%Fromtable4.14,inclass10,60percentofthestudentsareinterestedinEnglishgrammar;alltogether,28%studentsarenotinterestedinEnglishgrammarandonly12%studentsareveryinterestedinit.Inclass18,64%studentsareinterestedingrammar;21%studentsarenotinterestedinit;only15%studentsareveryinterestedinit.Accordingtotheanalysis,wecanseethatmoststudentsarenotveryinterestedinEnglishgrammar,theylearnitwelljustinordertogethighmarksinexams.Table4.15TheResultsofQuestionThree3.ComparedwithotherEnglishclasses,doyoulikeEnglishgrammar?ClassLikeveryLikeThesametoNotlikeDislikemuchotherclasses1010%30%43%10%7%1813%27%38%12%10%Inclass10,73%studentslikeEnglishgrammar;17%studentsdonotlikeitandjust10%28 studentslikeEnglishgrammarverymuch.Inclass18,66%studentslikeEnglishgrammar;22%studentsdislikeEnglishgrammarandjust13%studentslikeitverymuch.Fromthisquestion,wecanknowthatmostofthestudentsdonotlikeEnglishgrammarverymuch,comparedwithotherEnglishclasses.Table4.16TheResultsofQuestionFour4.DoyoulearnnewEnglishgrammarundertheguidanceoftheteacheroryoudoitdependingonyourowncomprehension?ClassAlwaystheMosttheAverageMosttheAlwaystheformerformerlatterlatter1038%36%11%13%2%1840%37%12%10%1%FromthetablewecanseethatwhenlearningEnglishgrammar,mostofthestudentsdependontheteachertoguidethem,onlyafewdoitontheirown.Table4.17TheResultsofQuestionFive5.WhenteachingnewEnglishgrammar,willyourteachergiveyoutherulesdirectlyorhe/shewillletyouconcludetheruleswithmanyexamples?ClassAlwaystheMosttheAverageMosttheAlwaystheformerformerlatterlatter1040%37%13%8%2%1843%35%11%10%1%Accordingtostudents’answerstoquestionfive,wecanconcludethatwhenteachingnewEnglishgrammar,mostofthetime,theteachersgivethestudentsthegrammaticalrulesdirectly,thatis,theteachersteachgrammarinadeductiveway.Theyrarelyusetheinductivemethod.Table4.18TheResultsofQuestionSix6.Whichwaydoyouprefer?Theteachergivesyoutherulesdirectlyoryouconcludetherulesonyourownundertheguidanceoftheteacher.ClassAlwaystheMosttheAverageMosttheAlwaystheformerformerlatterlatter108%12%10%47%23%189%9%11%43%28%Accordingtothedataintable4.16,inthetwoclasses,therearerespectively70%and71%studentsliketothinkanddiscovergrammaticalrulesontheirown.Andonlyabout30%studentsliketogetknowledgefromtheteacher.29 Table4.19TheResultsofQuestionSeven7.WhichwaydoyouthinkcanimproveyourEnglishlevel?Theteachergivesyoutherulesdirectlyoryouconcludetherulesonyourownundertheguidanceoftheteacher.ClassAlwaystheMosttheAverageMosttheAlwaystheformerformerlatterlatter1020%29%2%27%22%1822%26%1%28%23%Inansweringquestionseven,about50%studentsinthetwoclassesprefertheformer,thatis,theteachergivesthemtherulesdirectly.Itisadeductiveway.However,thereareabout50%studentslikethelatter,theyconcludetherulesontheirownundertheguidanceoftheteacher,whichisainductivemethod.Table4.20QuestionEight8.Theeffectsofdeductiveteachingmethodandinductiveteachingmethodonyou.a.ArousingmyinterestinEnglishb.Beinghelptodevelopindependentthinkingc.Beingsatisfiedd.Beinghelptointernalizinggrammaticalruese.Clearandeasytounderstandf.Beingsystematicg.Havingnofeelingsh.BeingnotsuitableformeQuestioneightisamultiplechoicequestion.Itinvestigatesthestudents’viewpointstowardsthetwoteachingmethods.MostofthestudentsthinkthattheinductiveapproachishelpfultodeveloptheirinterestinEnglish,developtheirindependentthinkingandinternalizetheirknowledge.Theythinkwhenapplyinginductivemethodtogetknowledge,theyaremoresatisfied.Deductivemethodisconsideredtobeclearandeasytounderstand,anditismoresystematicandefficientbutitalittledull.Thelastquestionisanopenone.ItiswhatkindofEnglishgrammarteachingclassdoyouexpect.Moststudentspreferthekindofclassthatisinteresting,lively.Theyhopetheycanbemoreinvolvedintheteachingprocess.4.3DataAnalysisoftheInterviewsthOnDecember4,2015,aftertheteachingexperimentandtheimmediatetest,aninterviewwithfiveEnglishteachersisconducted.Theteachersareinterviewedonebyone.Thefollowingtableistheoutlineoftheinterview.30 Table4.21InterviewOutline1.Howdoyouunderstandthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach?2.Whatkindsoflanguageknowledgethetwoapproachesaresuitableforteaching?3.WhichapproachdoyoupreferwhenteachingEnglishgrammar?4.Whataretheadvantagesofthismethod?5.Whatarethedisadvantagesofthismethod?6.Whichapproachismoresuitableforimprovingstudents’languageabilitiesandskills?7.Whataspectsdoyouthinkgrammarteachingneedstoimprove?8.Inyourmind,whatdoesaperfectEnglishgrammarclasslike?Allthefiveteachersareinterviewedabouttheeightquestions.Theiranswersareasfollows:Inansweringquestionone:howdoyouunderstandthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach?Alltheteacherscanclearlyrecognizeandtelldeduction,fromrulestoexamples,andinduction,fromexamplestorules.Asforquestiontwo:whatkindsoflanguageknowledgethetwoapproachesaresuitableforteaching?Theythinkthedeductiveapproachissuitableforteachingdifficultandobscurelanguageknowledge,whiletheinductiveapproachismoresuitableforeasyknowledge.Whenitcomestoquestionthree:whichapproachdoyoupreferwhenteachingEnglishgrammar?Differentteachershavedifferentopinions.Fourofthefiveteacherssaytheypreferthedeductiveapproach,becauseitiseasierforthemtoplantheclassesandtoteach.Onlyoneteachersaysshepreferstheinductiveapproach,forwhensheappliestheinductiveapproach,theclassismorelivelyandthestudentsaremoreinvolved.Butshedoesnotoftenusethismethod,becausetimeislimitedforher.Thenitisquestionfourandquestionfive:whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach?Intheiropinion,whenusingthedeductiveapproach,theknowledgeismoreclearandeasierforstudentstounderstandandalsotheknowledgeissystematic.Howeverthedeductiveapproachisalittledullandteacher-centered.Ontheotherhand,theinductiveapproachishelpfultoarousestudents’interestanddeveloptheirindependentthinking.Andalsostudentsaremoresatisfied.Buttheinductiveapproachismoretime-consuming,andstudentssometimesmaygetpuzzled.Inansweringquestionsix:whichapproachismoresuitableforimprovingstudents’languageabilitiesandskills?Someteachersarefordeductionandotherssupportinduction.Asforquestionseven:whataspectsdoyouthinkgrammarteachingneedstoimprove?Theythinkgrammarteachingneedstobemoreclear,easyandinterestingandgetstudentsinvolvedintheteachingprocess.Questioneightismoreopen-minded.Ingeneral,theteachersthinkaperfectEnglishgrammarclassshouldbeinterestingandlively.4.4DiscussionoftheResultsInthepreviousparts,wehavepresentedthedataanalysis.Inthissection,wediscusstheresultsoftheresearchandthedataanalysis.Whatshouldbenotedisthattheteacherdidteachthetargetgrammarinaccordancewiththedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach.Firstly,threetestsandfourtimesofdataanalysisareconducted.Fromthedataanalysisofthefinalexamination,wecanseethatthemeanscores(class10:101.91,class18:102.30)31 ofthetwoclassesarealmostthesame.Evensomestudentsdonotgettothecut-offscores,buttheirmeanscoresareoverthecut-offscores,ingeneral,theirEnglishlevelisfine.Atthesametime,italsoindicatesthatthereisnoobviousdivergencebetweenthetwoclasses.Sothetwoclassescanbechosenastheexperimentalgroup.Seenfromthedataanalysisofthepre-test,themeanscoresofthetwoclassesare18.47(class10)and18.67(class18).Wecandrawaconclusionthatthestudentsknowlittleaboutthetargetgrammarbecausethemeanscoresdonotgettothecut-offscore.AndalsothetwoclassesareatthesameEnglishlevelandtheexperimentcangoon.Aftertheteachingexperiment,twotests,theimmediatetestandthedelayedtest,areconductedtotestifytheeffectsoftheteachingexperiment.Firstofall,wediscusstheresultsoftheimmediatetest.Themeanscoreofclass10is30.66andthemeanscoreofclass18is31.58.Accordingtothedataanalysis,wecanconcludethatthecontrolgroup,whichisinstructedinadeductivewaygainsabettertestingscorethantheexperimentalgroupinstructedinainductiveway.Secondly,itcomestothedelayedtest.Themeanscoreofclass10is34.84andthemeanscoreofclass18is33.15.Fromthedataanalysis,wecangetthatthistimetheexperimentalgroupoutperformsthecontrolgroup.Secondly,students’preferencetodeductionandinductionaretosomeextentdifferent.Mostofthestudentsareinfavorofinduction,comparedwithdeduction.Becauseinaninductiveclass,studentsaremoreinvolvedintheteachingprocess.Theyarethecenteroftheclass.Theycanhavegrouplearninganddiscusswithclassmates.Theyaremoreactiveandthinkaboutthequestionsindependently.Butsometimes,whenlearningcomplexgrammar,theyarethrownintoadarkfieldandfeelconfusedtomakeitclear.Somestudentspreferdeductiontoinduction.Deductiveteachingmethodismoreefficient,speedyandeconomicthaninduction.Thegrammaticalrulestaughtinthedeductiveapproachiseasiertounderstandforstudents.Theygetacomplete,clearandfastunderstandingoftheconceptualknowledge.Thirdly,accordingtotheinterview,mostteachersprefertousethedeductiveteachingmethod,becausetheyareusedtothismethodanditiseasierforthemtoplantheclasses.Teachersperformtheroleasaknower,aninstructor,aclassroomorganizerandanevaluator.Theteacherssometimesusetheinductiveapproach.Whenusingtheinductiveapproach,theclassismorelively.Ingrammarteaching,wecanadoptaninductivemethodoradeductivemethod.Inthedeductivemethod,theteacherusuallyexplainsthegrammarrulesfirst,andthengivesstudentssomeexamples,andfinallyasksstudentstopracticeusingtheserules.Itisaprocessfromtheorytopractice.Thedeductivemethodcansavetimeandeffort.Butitalsohasdrawbackswhichshouldnotbeignored.Forexample,inthedeductivemethod,studentsmaylosetheprocessingopportunitiesprovidedbyobserving,analyzingandsolvinggrammarproblemsbythemselves.Thedeductiveapproachisconsideredasanout-dated,traditionalteachingapproach.Whenateacherteachesgrammardeductively,shefirstpresentsthegrammaticalrulestothestudentsaccompaniedbyamplesentences,andthenasksthestudentstodoexercisesaccordingtothegrammaticalrules.Inthisprocess,thestudentswritedownwhattheteacher32 teachespassively.Byusingthedeductiveapproach,thegrammaticalrulestheteacherpresentstothestudentsareclearerandeasiertograsp,sothestudentsinternalizetherulesandtendtogethigherscores.Atthesametime,teachinggrammardeductivelyiseasierfortheteacher,becausemostteachersareusedtothedeductiveteachingmethod.Alsodeductiveteachingmethodcansavetimefortheteacheranddeductiveteachingmethoddoabetterjobatcopingwithcomplexconceptualknowledgeandlinguisticrules.Ontheotherhand,deductionhasitsowndisadvantages.Forthestudents,theyareverypassiveandcannotbeinvolvedintheteaching.Manystudentscannottakeanactivepartingrammarteaching.Alsothestudentshavefewchancesofgrouplearningwhenthedeductiveteachingmethodisapplied.Intheinductivemethod,theteacherprovidesstudentswithexampleswhichtheteacherandstudentsobserveandanalyzetogether.theteacherconfirmsthedefinitionsandgrammarrules.Finallytheteacherasksstudentstopractiseusingtherules.Intheinductivemethod,throughanalyzing,inducing,andsumminguptherulesoflanguageuse,wecanhelpstudentsdeepentheircomprehensionofgrammar,improvetheirabilitiestodiscoverandsolveproblems,andthinklogically.Atthesametime,thiscanavoidthedrawbackswhicharefoundincramming.Thismethodalsohasshortcomingsinthatitcanbetime-consumingandlessefficient.TheinductiveapproachispopularbecauseoftheimplementationoftheNewCurriculumStandard.Whenusingtheinductiveapproach,theclassismorestudents-centered.Studentscanworkingroupsandcooperatewitheachother,whichincreasestheinteractionbetweenthestudents,thestudentsandtheteacher.AccordingtoLong(1991),interactionisthebridgebetweenthenativelanguageandtheforeignlanguageanditcanhelptoformtheinter-language.Ellis(2003)statedthatdiscoveringrulesbythemselvesandworkingontheirowncanenablethemtobuildtheirowngrammarsystembyheart.Soafterlearninggrammarwhichistaughtinductively,thestudentscanstateandmakeaclearclassificationofthetargetgrammarafteralongtime.What’smore,studentsaremoreenthusiasticandbegintobecomeinterestedingrammarlearning.Everycoinhastwosides.Inductiondoeshavesomedrawbacks.Planninganinductiveclassneedsmoretimeandmaterialsthanadeductiveone.Teachersneedtodomorepreparatoryworkbeforetheclass.Therearealwaysgroupdiscussionsinaninductiveclass,soitismoretime-consuming.Sometimes,whendealingwithdifficultgrammar,studentsarethrownintoadarkfieldandfeelconfused.Itisimportanttorememberthatgrammarteachingcannotbeabsolutelyinductiveordeductive.Thefocusofthelanguagemaychangeandtheteachingmethodthatteachersusemayvaryaccordingtothedifficultyofthegrammar,thelevelofthestudents.33 ChapterFiveConclusionThepurposeofthispaperistocomparetheeffectivenessandtheefficiencyofthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach.Thepaperfirstgivessomebasicliteraturereviewaboutdeductionandinduction.Thenateachingexperiment,accompaniedbytests,questionnairesandinterviewisconducted.Datafromtheexperimentiscollected,analyzedanddiscussed.Thischaptersummarizesthewholeresearch,whichincludesthemajorfindings,implicationsandlimitations.5.1MajorFindingsInordertoinvestigatethecomparativeeffectsofthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach,twoclasses,whichareatthesamelevel,arechosenastheexperimentalgroupandcontrolgrouptodotheteachingexperiment.Questionnaireisdesignedtoexplorestudents’attitudetowardsthetwoapproachesandtheirpreferenceforthem.SomeEnglishteachersarealsointerviewedtoinvestigatetheirteachingmethodsandtheirunderstandingaboutdeductionandinduction.Relevantdataarecollectedandanalyzedtogetsomeresults.Fromthedataanalysisresults,wecanreachsomeconclusions.1.Thedeductiveapproachisanapproachthatisfromrulestoexamples.Theteacherusuallygivesthegrammaticalrulestothestudents,thenshelistsamplesentencesassociatedwiththetargetgrammarandsheillustratestherulesstepbystep.Afterthis,studentsareaskedtodoexercisesaccordingtothegrammaticalrulesandsentenceexampleswhichareshownbytheteacherattheverybeginningoftheclass.Whentheteacherusesthedeductiveapproachinteaching,sheisclearaboutwhatshouldbetaught,likehavingamapwhentouring.Andalsothestudentsareclearaboutwhatshouldbelearnedatthebeginningoftheclass.Inthisapproach,theteacherdoesnotworryaboutthecostingoftimeandthestudentscaneasilyunderstandthetargetgrammar.Besides,whenitcomestotheteachingcontent,thedeductiveapproachisbetterforthetargetgrammarwithmorespecialandcomplexsituations,whichissimilartotheopinionsofHammerly(1975:18)andEllis(2006).Butthedeductiveapproachdoeshavesomedrawbacks.Whentheteacheremploysthedeductivemethod,theclassmaybeboringanddull.Thestudentsarejustlistenersandtheywritedownwhattheteachersayspassively.Theycannotbeinvolvedintheteachingprocess.2.Theinductiveapproach,conversetothedeductiveapproach,isfromexamplestorules.Theteachingprocessisasfollows.First,theteachergivesstudentsarangeofsentenceexamplesassociatedwiththetargetgrammaticalrules.Thenshedividesthestudentsintostudygroupandasksthemtofindoutthegrammaticalrulesinthesentenceswithgroupdiscussionundertheguidanceandcorrectionoftheteacher.Finally,thestudentsareaskedtoshowwhatgrammaticalrulestheyhaveconcluded.Usinginductivemethodtoteachcanarousestudents’curiosityandinterestintheclass.34 Studentsusetheirindependentthinkingtofindoutthegrammaticalrulesontheirownefforts.Thisgivesthemtheopportunitytobethemasteroftheclassanddeveloptheirabilityofsolvingproblem.Ontheotherhand,whenusingtheinductiveapproach,theteacherisnottired,comparedwiththedeductivemethod.Shejustneedstoguidethestudentsandgivethemsomecorrectionswhenitisnecessary.However,theinductiveapproachhasitsowndisadvantages.Itismoretime-consuming.Studentssometimesmaybethrownintoadarkfieldandbepuzzled.5.2ImplicationsFromtheresearchandthemajorfindings,wecangetsomeimplications.Thereareprosandcons,advantagesanddisadvantagesofdeductionandinduction.Inclassroomteachingpractice,inordertogetthebestteachingresults,teachersshouldadoptthetwoapproachesaccordingtothelevelofthelearnersandtheteachingcontent.Firstly,theyshouldconsidertheEnglishlevelofthelearners.Formaturelearnersoradults,theirunderstandingabilityismuchhigherandtheyareeasiertoacceptabstractgrammaticalrules,sothedeductiveapproachmaybemoresuitableforthem.However,younglearners’understandingabilityisnotfullydevelopedandtheymaymoreoftenfeelconfusedwhenlearningabstractconceptions.Sotheinductiveapproachismoresuitablefordevelopingtheirunderstandingability.High-levelstudentsprefertodiscoverknowledgebythemselves,whilelow-levelstudentstendtolearnknowledgewiththeteachertellingthem.Sotheteachersshouldadoptdifferentmethodswhenthelearnersareatdifferentlevelandcombinethetwoapproachestogethertoachievetheteachinggoals.Secondly,whattheteachersshouldconsideristheteachingcontent.Grammarcomplexityisacrucialfactorthataffectstheeffectivenessoftheinstruction.Whenthegrammaticalrulesareeasyandsimple,itisbettertoemploytheinductiveapproach,becausethestudentscangetthegrammaticalruleswithoutfeelingpuzzled.However,thedeductiveapproachismoresuitableforcomplexgrammaticalrules.Withtheteacherstellingthemthegrammaticalrulesclearly,thestudentsmayeasilytoaccepttheknowledge.Sotheteachersshouldconsiderthedifficultyofthetargetgrammaranduseproperapproaches.5.3LimitationsAlthoughtheteachingexperimenthasbeenconductedsuccessfullyandthedataanalysisismeaningful,therearestillsomelimitationsintheresearch.1.Theresearchsubjectsare65seniortwostudentsfromahighschool.Althoughwehaveanalyzedtheirfinalexaminationscoresandprovedthereisnoobviousdifferencebetweenthetwoclasses,therearestillmanyotherfactorsthatinfluencethestudyofstudents.TheenvironmentofEnglishlearning,thequalitiesoftheirEnglishteachers,theculturalatmosphereandtheeconomicconditionsoftheirfamiliescanallaffectthethestudyofstudentsandulteriorlyaffecttheexperiment.Ontheotherhand,thenumberoftheresearchsubjectsisjust65,sothesampleoftheresearchisrathersmallinsize.Thesubjectsareonlyfromonehighschool,whichcannotrepresentallthehighschoolswithvariedcharacteristics.2.Asweallknow,thedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproachcannotbeseparatedclearly.Whenwesaytheteacheradoptsthedeductiveapproachortheinductive35 approach,wejustrefertothemainmethod,becausetheteachermayusesalittleoneapproachwhenapplyinganotherapproach.3.Duetothelimitedtimeandenergy,inthecomparisonoftheeffectsofthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach,weonlychoosethesubjunctivemoodasthegrammarcontentofthispaper.Sothisexperimentcannotexplainothergrammars.Ifmoregrammaritemsarechosenandstudied,theresultsandconclusionsmaybemorepersuasiveandreliable.36 References[1]Anderson,J.R.,Corbett,A.T.,Koedinger,K.etal.Cognitivetutors:LessonLearned.TheJournalofLearnerSciences,1995.[2]Abraham,R.G.FieldIndependence-DependenceandtheTeachingofGrammar.TESOLQuarterly，1985：689-702.[3]Bacon,F.TheNewOrganon.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.1620[4]Breen,M.LearnerContributiontoTaskDesign.LanguageLearningTasks.HemelHemstead:PrenticeHall,1987.[5]Brown,H.D.PrinciplesofLanguageLearningandTeaching.NewYork:PrenticeHallRegents,1994.[6]Byrd,P.Grammarintheforeignlanguageclassroom:Makingprincipledchoices.CenterforAppliedLinguistics,Washington,DC.1998.[7]Chalmers,A.F.WhatisthisThingCalledScience?(3rdEd.),Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress,1999.[8]Cohen,L.,Manion.ResearchMethodsinEducation.London:CroomHelm,1980.[9]Decoo,W.TheDeduction-InductionOpposition:Ambiguitiesandcomplexitiesofthedidacticreality.InternationalReviewofAppliedLinguistics,1996,34:95-118[10]Ellis,R.CurrentIssuesintheTeachingofGrammar:AnSLAPerspective.TESOLQuarterly,2006,40:83-107.[11]Ellis,R.TeachingandResearching:OptionsinGrammarTeaching.OptionsinGrammarTeaching.TESOLQuarterly,1998.[12]Ellis,R.TheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Oxford:Pergamon,1994.[13]Erlam,R.TheeffectsofdeductiveandinductiveinstructionontheacquisitionofdirectobjectpronounsinFrenchasasecondlanguage.TheModernLanguageJournal,2003,87:242-260.[14]Felder,R.M.LearningandTeachingStylesinForeignandSecondLanguageEducation.ForeignLanguageAnnals,1995:21-31.[15]Fischer,A.R.TheInductive-DeductiveControversyRevisited.ModernLanguageJournal,1979,63:98-105.[16]Hammerly,H.TheDeduction/InductionControversy.TheModernLanguageJournal,1975,59:15-18.[17]Hawthorne,J.InductiveLogic.Stanford:TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,2011.[18]Moulton,W.G.LinguisticsandLanguageTeachingintheUnitedStates1940-1960.Utrecht,Netherlands:SpectrumPublishers,1963.[19]Nunan,D.SecondLanguageTeachingandLearning.Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2001.[20]Richards,J.C.&Rodgers,T.S.ApproachesandMethodsinLanguageTeaching.London:37 CambridgeUniversityPress,1986.[21]Rivers,W.M.TeachingForeignLanguageSkills.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1981.[22]Seliger,H.Inductivemethodanddeductivemethodinlanguageteaching:Are-examination.InternationalReviewofAppliedLinguistics,1975,13:2-18.[23]Shaffer,C.A.ComparisonofInductionandDeductionApproachestoTeachForeignLanguage.ModernLanguageJournal,1989(73):395-403.rd[24]Slavin,R.E.StudentsTeamLearning:APracticalGuidetoCooperativeLearning(3ed.).Washington,DC.:NationalEducationAssociation,1996[25]Stern,H.H.IssuesandOptionsinLanguageTeaching.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1992.[26]Winkins,D.A.NotionalSyllabuses.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1976.[27]程晓堂，郑敏，《英语学习策略》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2002。[28]戴炜栋，“构建具有中国特色的英语教学‘一条龙’体系”，载《外语教学与研究》，2001年第5期。[29]桂诗春，“外国外语教学的新思考”，载《外国语》，2004年第4期。[30]贾冠杰，《外语教育心理学》，南宁：广西教育出版社，2007。[31]刘振聪，“认知语法的新发展-Taylor《认知语法》介绍”，载《外语教学与研究》，2006年第3期。[32]罗立胜，石晓佳，“语法翻译教学法的历史回顾、现状及展望”，载《外语教学》,2004年第1期，第84-86页。[33]舒白梅，《英语课程教育学》，武汉：华中师范大学出版社,2004。[34]束定芳，庄智象，《现代外语教学---理论、实践与方法》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.93-99.[35]王丽萍.，“Krashen的外语洗的理论与外语教学”，载《理论观察》，2006年第12期.[36]王蔷，《英语教学法教程》（第二版），北京：高等教育出版社,2006。[37]肖礼全，《英语教学方法论》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2006。[38]虞旻泓,刘爱伦，“内隐学习在第二语言语音学习中的作用”，载《心理科学》，2006年第3期第631-634页。[39]战加香，“新课标下的英语语法教学”，载《中小学英语教学与研究》，2005年第10期，第5-9页。[40]张正东，“外语教学与第二语言教学的差异”，载《中小学外语教学》,2001年第10期，第l-3页和2001年第11期，第7-9页。[41]章兼中，《国外外语教学法主要流派》，上海：华东师范大学出版社,1983。[42]章振邦，《新编英语语法教程》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1983。[43]钟启泉，崔允漷，张华，《为了中华民族的复兴为了每位学生的发展<基础教育课程改革纲要（试行）>解读》，上海：华东师范大学,2001。38 [44]朱雪芹，“论英语教学法及发展趋势”，载《中国创新导刊》,2010年第33期。[45]邹艳春，“建构主义学习理论的发展根源与逻辑起点”，载《外国教育研究》，2002年第5期。39 AppendicesAppendixOneTeachingPlanA(class10)I.Teachingaims:1.Letthestudentsmastertheuseofsubjunctivemood.2.Enablethestudentstousesubjunctivemoodcorrectlyandproperlyaccordingtothecontext.3.Developstudents’abilityofapplyingsubjunctivemoodtopracticaluseforcommunicativepurpose.II.Teachingkeypoints:Getstudentstolearnandmasterthenewgrammaritem:subjunctivemoodIII.Teachingdifficultpoint:Enablethestudentstousesubjunctivemoodcorrectlyandproperlyaccordingtocontext.IV.Teachingmethods:Inductiveapproach,cooperativelearning,communicativeapproachV.Teachingaids:Themultimediateachingsystem;handoutVI.Teachingprocedures:Step1:Checkthehomeworkexercises.Step2:Givethestudentshandouts.ThereisapoemIfIWereaBoyAgainonthehandoutsandsomeothersentences.Becausethereisnoenoughmaterialsaboutsubjunctivemoodonthetextbook,Iusethispoemastheteachingmaterials.Step3:Askthestudentstoreadthroughthewholepoemandthenworkinagroupoffourtofindoutthefeaturesofthesentences.Askstudentstoputthesesentencesintodifferentcategoriesaccordingtotheirfeatures.Step4:supposethreeconditionsofpast,presentandfuture,marmorealsentences.e.g.1.FirstconditionalIfIhaveenoughmoney,IwillgotostudyinAmerica.2.SecondconditionalIfIhadenoughmoney,IwouldgotostudyinAmerica.3.ThirdconditionalIfIhadhadenoughmoney,IwouldhavegonetostudyinAmerica.（通过设置以上三个情景，呈现出不同时间的条件虚拟句，让学生发现语法规则，并总结出不同时间非真实条件句的构成)Step5:Asksomestudentstosharetheirdiscussionresultsandcorrectthemwhenthereismistakes.40 Step6:Letthestudentsdothefollowingtranslationpracticeshownonthescreen.Translatethesesentencesusingthesubjunctivemood.(1)如果他不快点，他将错过巴士。(2)如果他是空闲的，他会要求我讲故事。(3)如果我早到那儿，我就会见到她。(4)如果他听我的劝告的话，就不会犯这样的错误了。(5)如果哪天他来这儿的话，我就跟他谈谈。(6)如果下周日下大雪，我们就不能去滑冰了。Step7:FreetalkGiveStudents5minutestocreateadialogueinpairsaboutyourchildhoodandtrytoemployasmanytheusageofsubjunctivemoodaspossibleifappropriate,thenaskfourpairstoshowitinclass.Step8:Summing-upStep9:Homework1.Reviewandsummarizethegrammaritem:subjunctivemood.2.TrytopracticeusingsubjunctivemoodindailyoralEnglishcommunication.41 AppendixTwoTeachingPlanB(Class18)I.Teachingaims:1.Letthestudentsmastertheuseofsubjunctivemood.2.Enablethestudentstousesubjunctivemoodcorrectlyandproperlyaccordingtocontext.3.Developstudents’abilityofapplyingsubjunctivemoodtopracticaluseforcommunicativepurpose.II.Teachingkeypoints:Getstudentstolearnandmasterthenewgrammaritem:subjunctivemood.III.Teachingdifficultpoint:Enablethestudentstousesubjunctivemoodcorrectlyandproperlyaccordingtocontext.IV.Teachingmethods:Deductiveapproach,cooperativelearningV.Teachingaids:ThemultimediateachingsystemVI.Teachingprocedures:Step1:Checkthehomeworkexercises.Step2:Showthegrammaticalrulesofsubjunctivemoodonthescreenandbrieflyexplainthekeypointstothestudents,withoneortwotypicalexamplesfollowing.概念：谓语动词用不同的形式表达说话人的不同意图，这种形式称为语气。语气分为三种：1.陈述语气：用来陈述一个事实，或提出一种看法。Heislateforclass.Whatfun!2.祈使语气：用来表示命令、请求、邀请、警告等。(动词常用原形)Don’tbelateagain!3.虚拟语气:表示说话人所说的不是事实，而是一种假设，愿望或者推测。If引导的条件句虚拟语气在if引导If引导从句主句的条件句中的用法三点：表示与现在事实相If+主语+动词的过去式主语+would(shouldcould反的虚拟语气（be用were）might)+do表示与过去事实相If+主语+had+done主语+would(shouldcould反的虚拟语气might)+have+done42 表示与将来事实相If+主语+should+do主语+would(couldshouldmight)反的虚拟语气weretodo+do动词过去式错综时间条件句:主从句时间不一致的情况下的虚拟语气有时条件从句中的动作与主句中的动作，发生的时间不一致，这时动词的形式应根据它所表示的时间加以调整。IfIhadstudiedhardbefore,Iwouldbeacollegestudentnow.含蓄条件句:有时虚拟条件句并没用if从句表示出来，而是用介词短语（otherwise，or，without，butfor）上下文或其他方式来表示。Butforyourhelp,wewouldn’thavefinishedthetask.省略句：条件从句中省略if采用倒装语序的情况。在if引导的表示虚拟的条件状语从句中，有时可以把虚拟条件中的连词if省去，而将had，should，were等助动词提到主语之前。原句：Ifshewereyounger,shewoulddoit.去if：Weresheyounger,shewoulddoit.Step3:Letstudentsdothefollowingpracticesshownonthescreen.1.Usetherightformtofillintheblank⑴IfI____(be)you,Iwouldaccepthisadvice.⑵Ifit__________(rain)tomorrow,Iwouldstayathome.⑶Ifyouhadstudiedhardbefore,you__________(pass)theexam.⑷_____it______(rain)tomorrow,wewouldhavetoputoffthemeeting.⑸Iwasillthatday,otherwise,I_______(go)withyou.⑹Ifyou_____(take)hisadvicebefore,you______(notbe)inprisonnow.Step4:FreetalkGiveStudents5minutestocreatedialoguesinpairsabouttheirchildhoodandtrytoemployasmanytheusageofsubjunctivemoodaspossible,thenaskfourpairstoshowitinclass.Step6:Summing-upStep7:HomeworkReviewandsummarizethegrammaritem:subjunctivemood.43 AppendixThreeQuestionnaireForthefollowingquestions,therearefivedifferentchoices.Dependingonyourpersonalconditions,anychoiceispossibleandthereareno“right”or“wrong”choices.Accordingtoyourownconditionandopinion,youcanchoosethebestanswersfromthefivechoices.1.HowdoyoufeelaboutyourcommandofEnglishgrammar?a.Verygoodb.Goodc.Notbadd.Poore.Verypoor2.AreyouinterestedinEnglishgrammar?a.Veryinterestedb.Interestedc.Justsosod.Notinterestede.Dislike3.ComparedwithotherEnglishclasses,doyoulikeEnglishgrammar?a.Likeverymuchb.Likec.Thesametootherclassesd.Notlikee.Dislike4.DoyoulearnnewEnglishgrammarundertheguidanceoftheteacheroryoudoitdependingonyourowncomprehension?a.Alwaystheformerb.Mosttheformerc.Averaged.Mostthelattere.Alwaysthelatter5.WhenteachingnewEnglishgrammar,willyourteachergiveyoutherulesdirectlyorhe/shewillletyouconcludetheruleswithmanyexamples?a.Alwaystheformerb.Mosttheformerc.Averaged.Mostthelattere.Alwaysthelatter6.Whichwaydoyouprefer?Theteachergivesyoutherulesdirectlyoryouconcludetherulesonyourownundertheguidanceoftheteacher.a.Alwaystheformerb.Mosttheformerc.Averaged.Mostthelattere.Alwaysthelatter7.WhichwaydoyouthinkcanimproveyourEnglishlevel?Theteachergivesyoutherulesdirectlyoryouconcludetherulesonyourownundertheguidanceoftheteacher.a.Alwaystheformerb.Mosttheformerc.Averaged.Mostthelattere.Alwaysthelatter8.Theeffectsofdeductiveteachingmethodandinductiveteachingmethodonyou.a.ArousingmyinterestinEnglishb.Beinghelptodevelopindependentthinkingc.Beingsatisfiedd.Beinghelptointernalizinggrammaticalruese.Clearandeasytounderstandf.Beingsystematicg.Havingnofeelingsh.Beingnotsuitableforme9.WhatkindofEnglishgrammarteachingclassdoyouexpect?44 AppendixFourInterviewoutline1.Howdoyouunderstandthedeductiveapproachandtheinductiveapproach?2.Whatkindsoflanguageknowledgethetwoapproachesaresuitableforteaching?3.WhichapproachdoyoupreferwhenteachingEnglishgrammar?4.Whataretheadvantagesofthismethod?5.Whatarethedisadvantagesofthismethod?6.Whichapproachismoresuitableforimprovingstudents’languageabilitiesandskills?7.Whataspectsdoyouthinkgrammarteachingneedstoimprove?8.Inyourmind,whatdoesaperfectEnglishgrammarclasslike?45 AppendixFivePre-test46 47 48 49 AppendixSixImmediatetest12.Thewomanwasveryanxiousthatherwoundedson_____tothenearesthospitalatonce.A.shouldsendB.wouldbesentC.sentD.besent13.Ifit____fortherain,we____foranoutingyesterday.50 30.Hesmiledasifhe____mythought.A.readB.wasreadingC.hadreadD.hasread51 52 53 AppendixSevenDelayedTest54 55 A.shouldbeB.havetobeC.tobeD.tobeing56 A.isB.willbeC.wouldhavebeenD.wouldbe57 AcknowledgementsMygreatestappreciationgoestomysupervisor,YuFei,forhisinvaluableguidance,continuousencouragementandadviceformypaper.MysincerethanksareextendedtoalltheteachersinschoolofForeignLanguages.Theircharmingpersonalityandprecisenessinacademyimpressedmemost.Iamdeeplythankfultomyclassmates,whogavemegeneroushelp.Ialsowanttoacknowledgethe65studentsforaidingmetodotheexperimentandfortheirpatienceandsupport.Lastbutnotleast,Ihopetoshowmylovetomyfamilies,whoprovidemewithabundantencouragementandsupport.Nowordsareabletoexpressmygratitudetoallofthem,andIwishthemsuccessintheirlifeandwork.58