Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:17:18.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of using an online-based course on the learning of grammar inductively and deductively

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Ali Farhan AbuSeileek
Ali Farhan AbuSeileek
Affiliation:
King Saud University, College of Languages and Translation, P.O. Box. 87907, Riyadh 11652, Saudi Arabia (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aims at exploring the effectiveness of using an online-based course on the learning of sentence types inductively and deductively. To achieve this purpose, a computer-mediated course was designed. The sample of the study consists of four groups taught under four treatments of grammar: (1) with computer-based learning inductively, (2) with computer-based learning deductively, (3) with non-computer-based learning inductively, and (4) with non-computer-based learning deductively. A pre-test/post-test design (between-subject) is used to investigate the effect of two factors: method (computer-based learning vs. non-computer-based learning) and technique (induction vs. deduction) on the students’ learning of sentence types. The results reveal a new manner of enhancing grammar learning based on the level of language structure complexity. The computer-based learning method is found to be functional for more complex and elaborate structures, like the complex sentence and compound complex sentence, and more complicated grammar structures need to be taught by means of the deductive technique. None of the inductive and deductive techniques is reported to be more practical with simple grammar structures such as the simple sentence and compound sentence.

Keywords

Computer-based learningonline learninggrammarinductiondeduction
Type
Regular Papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 319 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, R. (1985) Field independence–dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 19: 689–702.Google Scholar
AbuSeileek, A. (2007) Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. CALL Journal, 20(5): 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AbuSeileek, A.Rababah, G. (2007) The effect of computer-based grammar instruction on the acquisition of verb tenses in an EFL context. Jalt CALL Journal, 3(12): 1–17.Google Scholar
Azar, B. (1992) Fundamentals of English Grammar, 3rd edition. Canada: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. (1992) Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25: 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, S.Burns, A. (2008) Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29: 456–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L. (2006) The effect of the use of L1 in a multimedia tutorial on grammar learning: An error analysis of Taiwanese beginning EFL learners’ English essays. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(2): 76–110.Google Scholar
Collentine, J. (2000) Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided user-behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning & Technology, 3(2): 44–57.Google Scholar
Corder, S. (1988) Pedagogic grammars. In: Rutherford, W. and Smith, M. (eds.) Grammar and Second Language Teaching. New York: Newbury, 123–145.Google Scholar
Decoo, W. (1996) The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. IRAL, 34: 95–118.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1995) Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3): 379–410.Google Scholar
Donmall, G. (1996) Making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear: a ‘language awareness’ approach to grammar. In: Shaw, G. and Myles, S. (eds.) German Grammar Teaching in Crisis?. London: Association for Modern German Studies, 46–60.Google Scholar
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(2): 242–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, U. (1999) Exploiting the Web for language teaching: Selected approaches. ReCALL, 11(1): 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitze, M. (2006) Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1): 67–86.Google Scholar
Gollin, J. (1998) Deductive vs. inductive language learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 52: 88–89.Google Scholar
Hall, C. (1998) Overcoming the grammar deficit: The role of information technology in teaching German grammar to undergraduates. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(1): 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hata, M. (2003) Literature review: Using computer-mediated communication in second language classrooms. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 54(3): 115–125.Google Scholar
Herron, C.Tomasello, M. (1992) Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. French Review, 65: 708–718.Google Scholar
Kelm, O. (1992) The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25: 441–545.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79: 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitade, K. (2008) The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1): 64–84.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2004) Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1): 83–100.Google Scholar
Levy, M.Kennedy, C. (2004) A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection and audio-conferencing in foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2): 50–69.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Baker, P.Wilson, A. (1995) A statistical analysis of corpus based computer vs. traditional human teaching methods of part of speech analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8(2–3): 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D.Weston, A. (2006) Participation in online problem-based learning: Insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance education. Distance Education, 27(3): 331–353.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (1998) Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2): 23–40.Google Scholar
Norris, J.Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50: 417–528.Google Scholar
Nutta, J. (1998) Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as teacher-directed grammar instruction for teaching L2 structures? CALICO Journal, 16(1): 49–62.Google Scholar
Oliver, R.McLoughlin, C. (2000) Using networking tools to support online learning. In: Lockwood, F. and Gooley, A. (eds.) Innovation in Open and Distance Learning. London: Kogan Page, 148–159.Google Scholar
Richards, J., Platt, J.Weber, H. (1985) Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996) Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1): 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, R.O’Neil, M. (1999) Explicitness, intake and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21: 511–556.Google Scholar
Schulze, M. (1999) From the developer to the learner: Describing grammar – learning grammar. ReCALL, 11(1): 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segers, E.Verhoeven, L. (2003) Effects of vocabulary training by computer in kindergarten. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4): 557–565.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. (1975) Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. IRAL, 13: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, C. (1989) A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73: 395–403.Google Scholar
Shei, C. (2006) Integrating content learning and ESL writing in a translation commentary writing aid. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1 & 2): 33–48.Google Scholar
Sullivan, N.Pratt, E. (1996) A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29: 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szkolne, W. (2005) Approaches to Teaching Grammar. http://www.wsipnet.pl/kluby/angielski.html?w=&kto=431&k1=431&id=4557.Google Scholar
Torlakovic, E.Deugo, D. (2004) Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in English. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 17(2): 203–235.Google Scholar
Uden, L.Beaumont, C. (2006) Technology and Problem-based Learning. London: Information Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanparys, J.Baten, L. (1999) How to offer real help to grammar learners. ReCALL, 11(1): 125–132.Google Scholar
Ware, P.O’Dowd, R. (2008) Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1): 43–63.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2): 7–26.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2000) On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In: Warschauer, M. and Kerns, R. (eds.) Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 41–58.Google Scholar