Module 3 in TAG
Module 3 in TAG
Learning Objectives:
At the end of the module the students should be able to:
1. Identify the Deductive and Inductive Approach in Grammar;
2. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches;
3. Apply the rules in grammar practices.
Learning Focus
Lesson 1: The Deductive Approach-Rule Driven Learning
A deductive approach starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by
example in which the rule is applied.
The grammar rule is presented and the learner engages with it through the
study and manipulation of examples.
Advantages of a deductive approach:
It gets straight to the point, and can be therefore by time-saving. Many
rules especially rules of form can be more simply and quickly explained
than elicited from examples. This will allow more time for practice
application.
It respects the intelligence and maturity of many especially adult, students
and acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in language acquisition.
It confirms many students' expectations about classroom learning,
particularly for those learners who have an analytical learning style.
It allows the teacher to deal with language points as they come up, rather
than having to anticipate them and prepare for them in advance.
Disadvantages of a deductive approach:
Starting the lesson with a grammar presentation may be off-putting for
some students, especially younger ones. They may not have sufficient
metalanguage (i.e. language used to talk about language such as grammar
terminology). Or they may not be able to understand the concepts
involved.
Grammar explanation encourages a teacher-fronted, transmission-style
classroom; teacher explanation is often at the expense of student
involvement and interaction.
Explanation is seldom as memorable as other forms of presentation, such
as demonstration.
Aldersgate College Teaching and Assessment of Grammar
College of Arts, Sciences and Education Junelyn G. Villar, LPT
What is a rule?
In the Longman Activity Dictionary “rule” is defined as:
-a principle or order which guides behavior, says how things are to be
done etc., (prescriptive rule)
- the usual way that something happens (descriptive rule). Descriptive
rules are primarily concerned with generalizations about what speakers of
the language actually do say than what they should do.
Pedagogic rules – they make sense to learners and provide them with the
means and confidence to generate language with a reasonable chance of
success.
Pedagogic rules can be spit up into:
rules of form and rules of use.
Examples of descriptive rules: You do not normally use the with proper
nouns referring to people. We use used to with the infinitive (used to do,
used to smoke etc.) to say that something regularly happened in the past
but no longer happens.
Example for rule of form: To form the past simple of regular verbs, add –
ed to the infinitive.
Example of a rule of use: The simple past tense is used to indicate past
actions or states.
Object Pronouns
me you him her it us you them
Many of the pros and cons of a rule-driven approach hinge on the quality of the actual rule
explanation. This in turn depends on how user-friendly the rule is. What makes a rule a good
rule? Michael Swan, author of teachers' and students' grammars, offers the following criteria:
• Truth: Rules should be true. While truthfulness may need to be compromised in the interests of
clarity and simplicity, the rule must bear some resemblance to the reality it is describing. It is
surprising how many incorrect explanations you find in TEFL books. A good example is the
distinction usually made between some and any, which goes something like: Use some+plural
countable/uncountable noun in affirmative sentences. Use any+plural countable/uncountable
noun in negative sentences and questions. It still fails to explain: Take any one you want. I didn't
Aldersgate College Teaching and Assessment of Grammar
College of Arts, Sciences and Education Junelyn G. Villar, LPT
like some of his books. An explanation based on the difference in meaning between some and
any might eliminate many of these problems.
• Limitation: Rules should show clearly what the limits are on the use of a given form. For
example, to say simply that we use will to talk about the future is of little use to the learner since
it doesn't show how will is different from other ways of talking about the future (e.g. going to).
• Clarity: Rules should be clear. Lack of clarity is often caused by ambiguity or obscure
terminology. For example: 'Use will for spontaneous decisions; use going to for premeditated
decisions.' To which a student responded, 'All my decisions are premeditated'.
• Simplicity: Rules should be simple. Lack of simplicity is caused by overburdening the rule
with subcategories and sub-sub-categories in order to cover all possible instances and account for
all possible exceptions. There is a limit to the amount of exceptions a learner can remember.
• Familiarity: An explanation should try to make use of concepts already familiar to the learner.
Few learners have specialized knowledge of grammar, although they may well be familiar with
some basic terminology used to describe the grammar of their own language (e.g. conditional,
infinitive, gerund). Most learners have a concept of tense (past, present, future), but will be less
at home with concepts such as deontic and epistemic modality, for example.
• Relevance: A rule should answer only those questions that the student needs answered. These
questions may vary according to the mother tongue of the learner. For example, Arabic speakers,
who do not have an equivalent to the present perfect, may need a different treatment of this form
than, say, French speakers, who have a similar structure to the English present perfect, but who
use it slightly differently.
A lot depends on the teacher’s presentation of the rule. An effective rule presentation will
include the following features:
1. It will be illustrated by an example
2. It will be short
3. Students’ understanding will be checked
4. Students will have an opportunity to personalize the rule
a. Complete the job interview between an As with all rule-explicit presentations, this
Interviewer (I) and a Candidate (C). Put the verbs approach demands a basic command of grammar
in brackets in the Present Perfect or Past Simple terminology on the part of the learners.
Tense. Hypotheses must be tested. That stage is essential
I: So, tell me a little about the things you ____. in the presentation. It also shifts the focus back on
(do) to the learners.
C: Well, I ____ (study) French and German at
University. Then, I ______ teach secondary
school for a few years.
I: _____ you (enjoy) teaching?
C: No, not really. I ____ (not like) the discipline
problems. So, ____ (start) working for a large
drug company.
I: ______ you (work) abroad at all?
C: Yes, well about three years ago I ____ (get) a
job in France, selling advertising space for a
Science magazine.
I: _____ you (go) anywhere else?
C: Yes, I ____ (work) in Germany in 1990.
I: Oh really? What _____ (do) there?
The minimal pair approach is designed to overcome the lack of economy of the generative situation. By
getting straight to the point, the minimal pairs presentation combines the best features of an explanation-
driven approach and a discovery approach. It is also relatively easy to plan and to set up. In terms of
efficacy, it relies heavily on the choice of sample sentences. More problematic still is the lack of context,
which can sometimes lead students to the wrong conclusions, or, more frustratingly, to no conclusion at
all.
A They’ve been painting the kitchen. There is nothing to help students untangle the
B They’ve painted the kitchen. difference between these two sentences.
A What a mess!” Whereas, with slightly more context, the
“Yes, they’ve been painting the kitchen.” difference in meaning starts to take shape:
B “The flat is looking nice.”
“Yes, they’ve painted the kitchen.”