If one takes the descriptions of the two approaches
given below (From TESOL's web page), Johanna's examples from her teaching of
German are orthdox uses of the approaches.
However, in the first example below which she terms
'inductive', isn't there a problem? In my view, it is not inductive but
more a rule of thumb for finding the subject of the sentence. In fact,
isn't it more deductive because one deduces the subject by following a
rule. There is no induction involved.
An inductive approach would entail (as a first
step, for example) more presenting students with diffferent syntactic forms with
let's say the subjects highlighted in red and the objects of the verb
highlighted in blue and getting students to work out what the reds and blues
have in common. And then go on from there.
This is a subject which seems pretty
straightforward but it can become more difficult when one starts to examine
Johanna's examples. And then. after all, it doesn't matter too much what
you call an approach if you're using it successfully.
Ron Sheen
> Inductive approach to finding the subject of a
sentence:
>
> Create a tag to go with the sentence, then use the
pronoun in the tag
> to "erase" or replace the appropriate portion
of the base sentence.
>
> For example:
>
> The
students chosen to compete in the spelling bee will take a bus to
>
New York City tomorrow.
> Add tag: The students chosen to compete in the
spelling bee will take
> a bus to New York City tomorrow, won't
they?
> [The students chosen to compete in the spelling bee] They will
take a
> bus to New York City tomorrow.
>
> This is a
problem-solving approach, as it gives the student a
> procedure to
apply to data in order to find a solution (identifying
> the
subject of the sentence.) The student proceeds by constructing a
>
tag, then using the pronoun in the tag to find the subject of the
>
base sentence. It's very important that this exercise is for native
> speakers, who do not need to consult conscious knowledge to
construct
> the tag; this is done in milliseconds and without
deliberation. The
> "erasure" procedure is, however, done
explicitly, with the check of
> the result relying on
native-speaker intuition.
>
> There are many such tricks, for tasks
ranging from deciding what is a
> complete sentence, to deciding
between 'who' and 'whom', to
> identifying participles vs. gerunds
(among verbs ending in '-ing'. No
> explicit knowledge of grammar
is needed to apply these tests; they
> are tools for making one's
subconscious knowledge of grammar explicit
> and learning
terminology and analysis skills to do so.
>
> Deductive
approach:
>
> The subject of a sentence is the noun phrase that
would be replaced
> with a pronoun in a tag added to the
sentence.
>
> To my mind, this would reverse the procedure: The
student would look
> for the subject of the sentence, then create a
tag, making sure that
> the pronoun in the tag agreed with the
subject. The choice of pronoun
> would not be intuitive, but
explicitly thought through.
>
> Maybe this is bogus, but this is my
understanding. To give an example
> from my German classes: I would
present students with paired
> sentences, and ask them to discover
a rule, in this case, verb
> placeement in subordinate
clauses.
>
> Peter war heute nicht in der Klasse. Er ist
krank. (Peter wasn't in
> class today. He is
sick.)
> Peter war heute nicht in der Klasse, weil er krank ist. (Peter
wasn't
> in class today, because he is sick.)
>
> Ich
lernte in der Bibliothek. Nachdem bin ich schwimmengegangen. (I
> studied in the library. Afterwards, I went swimming.)
> Ich bin
schwimmengegangen, nachdem ich in der Bibliothek lernte. (I
> went
swimming after I studied in the library.)
>
> Students would notice
that the verb "moves" to the end when a
> sentence becomes a
subordinate clause. This is the rule.
>
> A deductive approach
would be to state the rule: In German
> subordinate clauses, the
tensed verb occurs at the end of the clause.
> Then I would present the
sentence pairs in order to demonstrate the
> rule. No action except
paying attention and copying the rule is
> necessary here. To me,
that's boring, dry, external to the learner,
> and not
engaging.
>
> To me, the first way of presenting things just seems
naturally more
> interesting and engaging. The students' own
discovery of the rule is
> what, to me, gives the oomph necessary
to retain the rule better than
> in the deductive method. The
student might remember the experience of
> discovery more keenly
than the dry presentation of the rule -- the
> accustomed way of
learning language rules, which so many students
> find deadly
boring.
>
> In my experience of learning folk dances and drum
rhythm sequences, I
> retain patterns better once I discover
whatever logic they have --
> logic that is difficult for a teacher
to point out unless s/he is
> quite talented. But this kind of
learning involves motor skills,
> which, if Oliver Sacks is correct
in citing and claiming in a recent
> New Yorker article, are stored
elsewhere in the brain than factual
> knowledge (the
procedural/factual difference). Perhaps I find
> inductive learning
more interesting because it does draw on
> procedural skills, while
deductive learning depends on memorizing
> factual statements, and
applying them afterwards. Maybe the
> difference is not all that
significant. But I truly believe inductive
> presentations are more
engaging. I take care of the poor problem-
> solvers by providing a
deductive statement as a kind of review.
> Perhaps this puts them
at a disadvantage, but I usually have the
> inductive work done in
groups, so weaker students can observe the
> stronger ones and
still see what the answer is; they can also try the
> procedure
quietly on their own paper and not be punished or
> embarrassed if
they fail.
The deductive
approach represents a more traditional style of teaching in that the
grammatical structures or rules are dictated to the students first (Rivers and
Temperley 110). Thus, the students learn the rule and apply it only after they
have been introduced to the rule. For example, if the structure to be presented
is present perfect, the teacher would begin the lesson by saying, "Today we are
going to learn how to use the present perfect structure." Then, the rules of the
present perfect structure would be outlined and the students would complete
exercises, in a number of ways, to practice using the structure. (Goner,
Phillips, and Walters 135) In this approach, the teacher is the center of the
class and is responsible for all of the presentation and explanation of the new
material.
The inductive
approach represents a more modern style of teaching where the new
grammatical structures or rules are presented to the students in a real language
context (Goner, Phillips, and Walters 135). The students learn the use of the
structure through practice of the language in context, and later realize the
rules from the practical examples. For example, if the structure to be presented
is the comparative form, the teacher would begin the lesson by drawing a figure
on the board and saying, "This is Jim. He is tall." Then, the teacher would draw
another taller figure next to the first saying, "This is Bill. He is taller than
Jim." The teacher would then provide many examples using students and items from
the classroom, famous people, or anything within the normal daily life of the
students, to create an understanding of the use of the structure. The students
repeat after the teacher, after each of the different examples, and eventually
practice the structures meaningfully in groups or pairs. (Goner, Phillips, and
Walters 135-136) With this approach, the teacher's role is to provide meaningful
contexts to encourage demonstration of the rule, while the students evolve the
rules from the examples of its use and continued practice (Rivers and Temperley
110).
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/