> Giving students inductive means for doing things like finding the
> subject of a sentence or deciding which case is required for a
> pronoun can have long-term utility.
>
> Discovering a rule yourself is more likely to result in remembering
> that rule later. No, I don't have studies handy to cite to prove
> this, but I have learned it along the way in the course of studying
> about learning and teaching.

This is the problem with 'kicking ideas around' and refraining from getting into rigorous discussion requiring accountability to the available literature.

There is a vast literature from fields related to psychology on implicit (inductive) and explicit (deductive) learning from which it is clear that it is advisable NOT to make claims for the advantages of either approach without specifying the details of the learning situation.

Now, Johanna does this to some degree and implies that she could cite the necessary support had she the time. One example she cites is 'finding the subject of a sentence'..

Now. if she has the time I'd appreciate it were she prepared to describe what she considers to be inductive and deductive approaches to this problem..

By the way, I have already identified a serious problem with inductive approaches ie the problem related to vast differences in problem-solving abilities which have very serious consequences for what students actually do. Unfortunately, those members who advocate inductive approaches have not addressed this problem.

On a personal note and referring to Johanna's 'Discovering a rule yourself is more likely to result in remembering that rule later' sounds seductive but I wonder how many members have found this to be case. My learning experience is that of guitar chords for songs. I've learned them both ways and find there to be no difference. I've also carried out limited research in language learning (Sheen, 1992) related to learning adjectival position in French. Once again, I found there to be no significant difference in degree of retentivity.