Deductive or inductive grammar – which is the choice of vietnamese efl teachers

DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE GRAMMAR – WHICH IS THE CHOICE OF VIETNAMESE EFL TEACHERS? BY LAM HOANG PHUC B.A., HCMC UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION,VIETNAM A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS (TESOL) DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS BENEDICTINE UNIVERSITY LISLE, ILLINOIS, USA JUNE, 2019 ABSTRACT This research study focused on the issue of deductive versus inductive approaches in grammar instruction While many previous studies tried to compare the effectiveness of these two types of grammar teaching approaches, few examined the factors that can affect the choice of these approaches Therefore, the present study aimed to fill this research gap by investigating Vietnamese EFL teachers’ choice of deductive or inductive grammar teaching approaches and whether or not their choice is influenced by the three grammar teaching factors: (1) structures’ complexity, (2) learners’ proficiency level, and (3) learners’ age The present study employed survey research design, utilizing a questionnaire containing both close-ended and open-ended questions 34 Vietnamese EFL teachers working for a private English center took part in the survey, which was implemented online through the Google Forms platform Quantitative data were analyzed through descriptive statistics in the form of percentages and inferential statistical analysis in the form of chi-square tests, while qualitative data were analyzed through qualitative coding The results of data analysis showed that the Vietnamese EFL teachers in the study preferred inductive approaches to deductive approaches and the teaching factors examined all had significant impacts on the teachers’ choice with learners’ age being the most influential, followed by learners’ proficiency level and structures’ complexity respectively The results of the study offer a fresh view on the topic of deductive versus inductive grammar teaching; in addition, these results can act as a source of reference for new and inexperienced Vietnamese EFL teachers ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my dearest family – my greatest source of support and encouragement, and to K.T – my inspiration iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all of the professors from Benedictine University and the University of Social Sciences and Humanities who guided me through my M.A journey: Dr Sandra Kies, Dr Olga Lambert, Dr Le Hoang Dung, Dr Le Nguyen Minh Tho, Dr Pho Phuong Dung, and Dr Nguyen Thi Hong Tham Their enthusiasm gave birth to my desire to pursuit academic study, and their immense knowledge has enlightened me, enabling me to complete this thesis My thanks also go to Ms Ha Minh Thu and the staff of the Center for International Education of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities Their tireless work ensured that my M.A course proceeds smoothly without any unwanted incidents I would also like to extend my gratitude to all of the people who helped me during the data collection and analysis stages of my study: the director of the language institute where my study took place, the teachers who participated in my study, and the experts who aided me in the processes of questionnaire design and data coding Their selfless support helped to build the foundation for my study Finally, my most special thanks go to my family, who were always beside me throughout my M.A course Without their love and financial support, it would not have been possible for me to complete this long journey From the bottom of my heart, thank you all iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii DEDICATION iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv DECLARATION v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Grammar and Grammar Teaching 1.2 Deductive and Inductive Grammar Teaching 1.3 Aims of the Study 1.4 Organization of the Thesis CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Grammar and the Importance of Grammar 2.2 The Necessity of Grammar Teaching 2.3 Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Grammar Teaching 12 2.4 Research Aims and Questions 15 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 18 3.1 Summary of Research Aims and Questions 18 3.2 Research Methods and Theoretical Justification 18 3.3 Participants 21 3.4 Instruments 24 vi 3.5 Procedures 27 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 29 4.1 Summary of Research Aims, Questions, and Methodology 29 4.2 Methods for Data Analysis 30 4.3 Participants’ Overall Preferences for Teaching Approaches 34 4.4 Relationships between Teaching Factors and Participants’ Choice of Approaches 35 4.4.1 Relationship between Structures’ Complexity and Choice of Approaches 35 4.4.2 Relationship between Learners’ Proficiency Level and Choice of Approaches 36 4.4.3 Relationship between Learners’ Age and Choice of Approaches 37 4.5 Comparisons between the Impacts of Teaching Factors 38 4.5.1 Comparison between the Impacts of Structures’ Complexity and Learners’ Proficiency Level 38 4.5.2 Comparison between the Impacts of Structures’ Complexity and Learners’ Age 39 4.5.3 Comparison between the Impacts of Learners’ Proficiency Level and Learners’ Age 40 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 42 5.1 Summary of Research Aims, Questions, and Methodology 42 5.2 Participants’ Overall Preferences for Teaching Approaches 43 vii 5.3 Relationships between Teaching Factors and Participants’ Choice of Approaches 45 5.3.1 Relationship between Structures’ Complexity and Choice of Approaches 45 5.3.2 Relationship between Learners’ Proficiency Level and Choice of Approaches 46 5.3.3 Relationship between Learners’ Age and Choice of Approaches 47 5.4 Comparisons between the Impacts of Teaching Factors 48 5.5 Pedagogical Implications 49 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 51 6.1 Summary of the Present Study 51 6.2 Limitations of the Present Study 53 6.3 Recommendations for Future Research 55 REFERENCES 57 APPENDIX A: The Present Study’s Consent Form 63 APPENDIX B: The Present Study’s Questionnaire 64 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Distribution of Participants According to Age 22 Table 3.2: Distribution of Participants According to Years of Experience 23 Table 4.1: Participants’ Choice for Deductive and Inductive Approaches 34 Table 4.2: Participants’ Choice of Approaches for Structures of Different Complexity Levels 35 Table 4.3: Participants’ Choice of Approaches for Learners of Different Proficiency Levels 36 Table 4.4: Participants’ Choice of Approaches for Learners of Different Age Groups 37 Table 4.5: Participants’ Choice of Approaches When Teaching Reported Speech (Y-N question) to Learners of Different Proficiency Levels 39 Table 4.6: Participants’ Choice of Approaches When Teaching Reported Speech (Y-N question) to Learners of Different Age Groups 39 Table 4.7: Participants’ Choice of Approaches When Teaching Intermediate Learners of Different Age Groups 40 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Example of Questionnaire Questions 26 x complexity respectively Since the previous research that compares the impacts of these three grammar teaching factors seems to be extremely scarce, this result was compared with only one study and corroborates the findings of this study Summing up, the results of the present study may provide insightful information and a fresh view into the issue of deductive versus inductive grammar teaching approaches On a more practical note, these results can serve as a guide for Vietnamese EFL teachers who are new to the field and would like to know how their grammar lessons should be approached The following sections will provide details concerning the limitations of the present study as well as recommendations for future research 6.2 Limitations of the Present Study Flaws and limitations are almost inevitable when conducting a research study The processes of designing and carrying out the present study have some notable limitations which will be outlined in this section The first limitation concerns the scope of the present study As mentioned in Chapter – Literature Review, previous literature has shown that the choice of grammar teaching approaches may be influenced by the following factors: (1) the complexity of target grammatical structures, (2) learners’ age, (3) learners’ proficiency level, (4) learners’ grammar analysis aptitude, and (5) learners’ preferred learning styles However, the present study only focused on the first three factors since the inclusion of the other two factors may have made the study too cumbersome for me to handle, not to mention the fact that extra explanations for the terminology related to grammar analysis aptitude and learning styles may have been required as they may be unfamiliar to the participants Moreover, due to the intangible nature of these two factors, the participants’ 53 perceptions of their students’ aptitude and learning styles may have not reflected the reality, and finding out whether this is the case would have required more investigations, thus increasing the workload further Nonetheless, this limitation in scope certainly made the results of the present study less comprehensive The second limitation concerns the sample of the present study Although the study’s sample size of 34 participants is adequate for survey research (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991, as cited in Dörnyei & Csizér, 2012, p 82), such a small sample size may have limited the generalizability and statistical significance of the results of the study In addition, due to the constraints of time and resources, the present study opted for convenience sampling instead of more effective methods such as stratified random sampling Although my experience working as an EFL teacher for private language centers in Vietnam enables me to say that the present study’s sample to a certain degree can represent a larger population, it is entirely possible that this anecdotal evidence does not reflect the reality Thus, the use of convenience sampling together with the small sample size may have hindered the present study’s ability to represent the general population of Vietnamese EFL teachers The third limitation concerns the data collection methods employed by the present study As described in Chapter – Methodology, surveys were the only collection method utilized in the present study While the practice has practical benefits such as being inexpensive, quick, and easy to implement, the absence of other data collection methods denied the present study the opportunity to triangulate data from different sources to enhance the validity and reliability of the data gathered In addition, as mentioned in Chapter – Methodology, the study used open-ended written questions instead of interviews to investigate the participants’ rationale for their choice of grammar teaching approaches due to a practical problem It had been expected that the quality of 54 the data yielded from these written questions would be somewhat limited, and this turned out to be true; many of the participants’ responses (64 out of the original 129 responses) had to be discarded due to ambiguity and vagueness An example of such responses is the rationale given by a participant for his/her choice of approaches when teaching students of different age groups, namely “suitable for different age groups”; this response was not helpful for the study since the participant did not point out exactly why such a choice is suitable for these age groups Moreover, the use of written questions also denied the opportunity for further discussions with the participants regarding their answers The last limitation concerns the data collection process of the present study As shown in Chapter – Methodology, the data collection phase was carried out online using the Google Forms platform Although the use of an online platform was convenient for both the researcher and the participants, it also made it impossible for me to monitor the collection process As a result, while all of the close-ended questions were answered adequately, some participants did not provide their responses to the open-ended questions, which negatively affected the overall quality of the data collected Had the researcher been present, this problem may have been avoided 6.3 Recommendations for Future Research First of all, similar research studies which are conducted with a much larger sample size and employ different data collection methods such as surveys, interviews, and observations to triangulate data may yield results that are more reliable and accurate than those of the present study This will help to confirm what was found in the present study 55 Secondly, future research can focus on the two grammar teaching-related factors that were not touched in the present study, namely learners’ grammar analysis aptitude and learners’ preferred learning styles The investigation of the possible impacts of these two factors on Vietnamese EFL teachers’ choice of deductive or inductive approaches can complement the results of the present study, thus creating a more comprehensive picture of the topic Finally, future research can investigate the topic of deductive versus inductive grammar teaching approaches through different angles Particularly, these studies can triangulate the opinions of both EFL teachers and students concerning the overall effectiveness of the two types of approaches and the situations in which one type of approach is more beneficial than the other; additionally, these studies can compare teachers’ and students’ opinions with the results of quasiexperiments examining the effects of the two types of teaching approaches on students’ learning gains The results and findings gained from these analyses will probably yield valuable insights into the topic of deductive versus inductive grammar teaching 56 REFERENCES AbuSeileek, A F (2009) The effect of using an online-based course on the learning of grammar inductively and deductively ReCALL, 21(3), 319-336 http://dx.doi.org.libweb.ben.edu/10.1017/S095834400999005X Aish, F., & Tomlinson, J (2012) Grammar for IELTS London: HarperCollins Publishers Baralt, M (2012) Coding qualitative data In A Mackey & S M Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp 222-244) Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Celce-Murcia, M (1985) Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 297-301 Celce-Murcia, M (1991) Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 459-512 Cerezo, L., Caras, A., & Leow, R P (2016) The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish Gustar structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 265-291 doi:10.1017/S0272263116000139 Chernovaty, L (1990) Grammar teaching: The inductive vs deductive issue revisited Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: An International Review of English Studies, 23, 111-119 Craven, M (2013) Breakthrough plus London: Macmillan Education Creswell, J W (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.) Boston: Pearson Education 57 DeKeyser, R M (1995) Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379-410 doi:10.1017/S027226310001425X Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K (2012) How to design and analyze surveys in second language acquisition research In A Mackey & S M Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp 74-94) Chichester, West Sussex: WileyBlackwell Doughty, C (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431469 doi:10.1017/S0272263100010287 Doughty, C (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form In P Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp 206-257) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ellis, R (2001) Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction Language Learning, 51, 146 Ellis, R (2006) Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107 doi:10.2307/40264512 Ellis, R (2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press Erlam, R (2003) The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language The Modern Language Journal, 87, 242260 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1193035 Fischer, R A (1979) The inductive-deductive controversy revisited Modern Language Journal, 63(3), 98-105 58 Fotos, S S (1993) Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407 Friedman, D A (2012) How to collect and analyze qualitative data In A Mackey & S M Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp 180200) Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Haight, C E., Herron, C., & Cole, S P (2007) The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288-310 doi:10.1111/j.19449720.2007.tb03202.x Hall, C (1998) Overcoming the grammar deficit: The role of information technology in teaching German grammar to undergraduates Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(1), 41-60 Jean, G., & Simard, D (2013) Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles System, 41(4), 1023-1042 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.008 Johnson, R B., & Onwuegbuzie, A J (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26 Kheyrkhania, Y (2013) The effect of sculptures of activities on grammar learning and retention of Persian adult EFL learners, a comparison of deductive and inductive methods Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 3(1), 81-97 Krashen, S D (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning Oxford: Pergamon Press Larsen-Freeman, D (2001) Teaching grammar In M Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp 251-266) Boston: Heinle & Heinle 59 Larson-Hall, J (2012) How to run statistical analyses In A Mackey & S M Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp 245-274) Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Lightbown, P M., & Spada, N (1990) Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448 McKay, S L (2005) Researching second language classrooms Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Mohammed, A A., & Jaber, H A (2008) The effects of deductive and inductive approaches of teaching on Jordanian university students' use of the active and passive voices in English College Student Journal, 42(2), 545-553 Montazeran, P., Asadi, E., & Maghsoudi, M (2014) The effect of inductive and deductive methods of teaching on Iranian EFL learners' grammar knowledge Enjoy Teaching Journal, 2(3), 60-69 Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S (2004) Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145 doi:10.1017/S0267190504000066 Nassaji, H., & Swain, M (2000) A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles Language Awareness, 9, 34-51 doi:10.1080/09658410008667135 Nitta, R., & Gardner, S (2005) Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks ELT Journal, 59(1), 3-13 60 Révész, A (2012) Coding second language data validly and reliably In A Mackey & S M Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp 203-221) Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Riazi, A M., & Candlin, C N (2014) Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies, 47, 135-173 doi:10.1017/S0261444813000505 Richards, J C (1985) The context of language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Robinson, P (1996) Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67 doi:10.1017/S0272263100014674 Rokni, S J A (2009) A comparative study of the effect of explicit-inductive and explicitdeductive grammar instruction in EFL contexts Language in India, 9(11), 152-175 Retrieved from http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2009/explicitimplicitrokni.html Schwartz, B D (1993) On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147-163 doi:10.1017/S0272263100011931 Schwartz, B D., & Gubala-Ryzak, M (1992) Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement Second Language Research, 8, 1-38 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43104440 Simmons, N., Thompson, T., & Quintana, J (2010) Family and friends American edition Oxford: Oxford University Press Skehan, P (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning Oxford: Oxford University Press 61 Smart, J (2014) The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 26(2), 184-201 doi:10.1017/S0958344014000081 Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Arends, E., & Canrinus, E T (2014) The effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental grammatical instruction in second language classrooms System, 45, 198-210 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.06.003 Thornbury, S (1999) How to teach grammar London: Pearson United Kingdom Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S P., & York, H (2011) Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate-level college French classroom Foreign Language Annals, 44, 353-380 doi:10.1111/j.19449720.2011.01133.x Widodo, H P (2006) Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 122-141 Retrieved from http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/2006v5n1nar1.pdf Zobl, H (1995) Converging evidence for the 'Acquisition-Learning' distinction Applied Linguistics, 16, 35-56 doi:10.1093/applin/16.1.35 62 APPENDIX A The Present Study’s Consent Form Consent Form for Survey Research DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE GRAMMAR – WHICH IS THE CHOICE OF VIETNAMESE EFL TEACHERS? Background Information: The purpose of this study is to examine Vietnamese EFL teachers’ choice of grammar teaching methods and the possible influences of some teaching factors on this choice Procedures: Upon your agreement to participate in this study, you will complete a brief survey that will take less than 20 minutes Risks and Benefits Associated with the Study: This study does not have any known risks The benefits in this study include providing a general picture of how Vietnamese EFL teachers approach grammar teaching, raising awareness of the factors that can influence the choice of grammar teaching methods, and establishing a starting point for future research that would yield practical benefits Confidentiality: These surveys are anonymous The records of this study will be kept in a locked office at the university, preventing any breach of confidentiality Should the study ever become published material, your name will in no way be linked to the study, nor will it mention your personal involvement Voluntary Nature of the Study: Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with this BU student researcher or with Benedictine University faculty You are free to withdraw at any time without affecting your relationship with the researchers or Benedictine University Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is Hoang Phuc Lam with Dr Olga Lambert If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please ask the student researcher at this time If questions or concerns arise at a later time, you may direct them to [0122 803 3392 – hoangphuc10192@gmail.com] or to [630-829 6291 – olambert@ben.edu] Questions and concerns may also be addressed to Alandra Devall, Ph.D., Chair, Institutional Review Board, Benedictine University, 5700 College Road, Lisle, Il 60532, 630-829-6295 or adevall@ben.edu Statement of Consent: By signing below, you have agreed to the above information in its entirety Signing also indicates that you are 18 years of age or more and that you have agreed to participate Signature _ Date _ 63 APPENDIX B The Present Study’s Questionnaire DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE GRAMMAR - WHICH IS THE CHOICE OF VIETNAMESE EFL TEACHERS? We would like to ask you to help us by completing the following questionnaire concerning grammar teaching This is not a test so there are no “right” or “wrong” answers and you don’t even have to write your name on it Please give your answers sincerely as only this will guarantee the success of the investigation Thank you very much for your help! PART I What is your gender? What is your age? How long have you been teaching English? PART Given that there are two grammar teaching methods:  Method A: Explain grammar rules, then give examples  Method B: Give examples, then let students guess grammar rules from examples Which method will you choose for each of the situations below? Choose only ONE method for each situation, and give your choice for all of the situations In addition, briefly state the reasons for your choice at the end of each section You have to teach your students the following structures:  verb form of the present continuous tense A B A B E.g.: Thomas is working hard in order to pass the final exam  reported speech (yes-no questions) 64 E.g.: My dad asked me “Did you stay here yesterday?”  My dad asked me whether I had stayed there the previous day Your reasons: You have to teach grammar to different student groups of different proficiency levels:  a group of elementary learners (levels A1 – A2) A B  a group of intermediate learners (levels B1 – B2) A B  a group of advanced learners (level C1) A B Your reasons: You have to teach grammar to different student groups of different ages:  a group of children aged – 11 A B  a group of teenagers aged 12 – 17 A B  a group of adults aged 18 or above A B Your reasons: You have to teach reported speech (yes-no questions) to different student groups of different proficiency levels:  a group of elementary learners (levels A1 – A2) A B  a group of intermediate learners (levels B1 – B2) A B 65  A a group of advanced learners (level C1) B Your reasons: You have to teach reported speech (yes-no questions) to different student groups of different ages:  a group of children aged – 11 A B  a group of teenagers aged 12 – 17 A B  a group of adults aged 18 or above A B Your reasons: You have to teach intermediate student groups of different ages:  a group of children aged – 11 (levels B1 – B2) A B  a group of teenagers aged 12 – 17 (levels B1 – B2) A B  a group of adults aged 18 or above (levels B1 – B2) A B Your reasons: THANK YOU VERY MUCH – WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP! 66 THESIS APPROVAL Student: Lâm Hoàng Phúc Department: Languages and Literature, College of Liberal Arts Thesis Title: DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE GRAMMAR – WHICH IS THE CHOICE OF VIETNAMESE EFL TEACHERS? Thesis advisor May 31, 2019 Thesis advisor May 31, 2019 Approval for Binding Chair, Dept of Languages and Literature May 31, 2019 Distribution of Final Copies (4 bound, electronic) Benedictine University Library (1 electronic copy – pdf, for Constellation archive) Benedictine University Library (1 bound copy) Benedictine University Dept of Languages and Literature (1 bound copy) USSH (2 bound copies)