VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:34:12 04/14/07 Sat
Author: Clarissa Azeredo
Subject: Re: Task One Group Two
In reply to: Andréa Faria 's message, "Re: Task One Group Two" on 20:58:21 04/10/07 Tue

> Three good reasons for using the deductive approach
>
> Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
>are constantly faced with the urge to make choices
>among a variety of approaches based on competing
>theories. This can be a problem, for example, when
>introducing new language items in class. There are
>two basic ways of doing this: deductively or
>inductively. Briefly speaking, deductive presentations
>involve giving students rules and explanations and
>leading them to apply the new concepts, whereas in
>inductive presentations learners infer rules or
>generalizations from samples of the language they
>explored or manipulated. Communicative Language
>Teaching (CLT), based on constructivist principles,
>has tended towards the inductive approach, especially
>because it is said to foster “discovery learning” and
>encourage learners to reflect upon what they are
>exposed to. The premise is that we have better chances
>of retaining information we discover by ourselves than
>information transmitted by others. With the
>popularity of CLT, the deductive approach, generally
>associated with teacher-centered methodologies, has
>lost much of its prestige. However, despite claims
>against it, there are at least three good reasons for
>not discarding deductive procedures from our
>classrooms, even in those that follow CLT ideas. /I
>will try/ BW/e to present these reasons and support them
>with arguments from well-known researchers in the area.
> First of all, an important reason for not
>eliminating the deductive approach is that students’
>styles vary. Though some learners like the challenge
>of solving language problems and discovering patterns
>and regularities in the input they manipulate, many
>others, especially adults, due to past experiences or
>a more analytical style, prefer to be given explicit
>rules so that they can apply them. Furthermore, as
>Thornbury points out in his book "How to teach
>grammar", surveys have shown that most learners tend
>to prefer deductive presentations to inductive ones
>(55). Although we should not turn to this resource
>simply because students feel more comfortable with it,
>ignoring students learning styles is not only
>counter-productive, but also demotivating. In her
>article "Teaching grammar", Diane Larsen-Freeman
>states that, “Usually students request rules and
>report that they find them helpful. Moreover, stating
>a rule explicitly can often bring about linguistic
>insights in a more efficacious manner” (124).
> Secondly, the deductive approach can be more
>efficient than the inductive to introduce complex
>grammar items. Scott Thornbury argues that there is a
>high risk of coming up with wrong rules when using the
>inductive approach to analyze intricate structure
>points, especially if the testing of hypotheses is
>insufficient. He states that certain language notions
>are better “given” than “learned”, citing modality and
>aspect as areas that resist easy rule formulation (55).
> Finally, deductive presentations are considerably
>more time-saving. In language classes, we should
>carefully balance the amount of time to present and
>practise new items. Reducing the amount of time needed
>in the presentation stage means more time left for
>practice and production. Apart from this, deductive
>strategies are less demanding on the teacher than
>inductive ones, which require careful selection and
>organization of intelligible data, so that students
>can formulate accurate rules. Deductive procedures
>take less preparation time and fewer
>resources(Thornbury, 55). Teachers can, for
>instance,comment on examples from students’ own
>production and give them the opportunity to
>personalize the rules in order to make them more
>easily remembered.
> As we can see, there is still room for the
>deductive approach in EFL classrooms. Banishing it
>altogether would mean disregarding students’ different
>learning styles and preferences, being inefficient in
>presenting convoluted linguistic items and running the
>risk of spending more time in the preparation and
>presentation stages instead of giving students more
>time to practise what they are learning. All in all,
>deductive teaching should be seen as a useful tool to
>be employed by the teacher when s/he feels it is more
>adequate or efficient than the inductive approach. If
>one of our roles as teachers is to act as facilitators
>of our students’ learning process, we should avoid
>discarding resources that are still valuable, be they
>in fashion or not. On the whole, analyzing who, what
>and why we are teaching is an essential starting point
>before any choice for a given methodology or approach
>is made.
>
> Works Cited
>
>Thornbury, Scott. How to teach grammar. London:
>Longman/Pearson Education Limited, 1999: 1-68
>
>Larsen-Freeman, Diane. “Teaching grammar.” Teaching
>English as a second or foreign language. Boston :
>Heinle & Heinle, 1991: 251-266.
>
>
>Note to Fran and Clarissa:
>I couldn't put the names of the books in italics. I
>had to use inverted commas in the text to show they
>are names of books, although I know this is not the
>right way to do it. The format of the text on the
>"page" is also strange. I believe these are
>restrictions of this tool.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

  • Re: Task One Group Two -- Francidéa Freitas, 04:39:22 04/16/07 Mon
    [ Contact Forum Admin ]

    Forum timezone: GMT-8
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.