The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on the Acquisition of Direct Object Pronouns in French as a Second Language

Abstract

This article presents results from a recent study that isolated grammar instruction that is deductive (i.e., involving rule presentation and metalinguistic information) as a variable and contrasted it with an instructional treatment that is inductive (i.e., focusing on form with no explicit grammar instruction). The effectiveness of these two types of instruction was compared on measures of both comprehension and production. The study also investigated the interaction between type of instruction and the morphological and syntactical features involved in the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The results revealed a significant advantage for the deductive instruction group. The study highlighted the difficulty of designing language measures that access implicit language knowledge. It also underlined the strong relationship that exists between the observed effectiveness of a particular type of instruction and tests/measures used.THERE IS NOW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT lends support to an explicit focus on form in language program design. Norris and Ortega (2000) summarised findings from experimental and quasi-experimental investigations into the effectiveness of second language (L2) instruction published between 1980 and 1998 and found that focused L2 instruction, in comparison to simple exposure or meaning-driven communication, makes a significant difference. They also reported robust evidence to suggest that treatments involving an explicit focus on the rule-governed nature of L2 structures are more effective than treatments that do not include such a focus. However, as the studies reviewed by Norris and Ortega demonstrated, explicit instruction may be operationalized in many different ways. The studies underlined the need for systematic investigation of subtypes of explicit L2 instruction so that inferences regarding their relative effectiveness can be drawn.¹ The purpose of the present study was to isolate deductive and inductive grammar teaching as two subtypes of L2 instruction that have been the object of a small number of research investigations. The article presents a brief overview of research to date and the results from a study conducted by the researcher. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH REVIEWThe Inductive-Deductive Opposition

L’opposition inductif/déductif en enseignement de la grammaire : un débat à nuancer

“…La troisième interprétation de la méthode inductive, soit la modalité D, appelée approche inductive implicite à l'aide de matériel structuré, est utilisée par Mohammed et Jaber (2008), Erlam (2003), Rose et Ng (2001), Rosa et O'Neill (1999), Robinson (1996), Shaffer (1989) et Abraham (1985. Ceux-ci, pour définir la méthode inductive, utilisent également la notion d'enseignement explicite et implicite.…”

“…En observant les 13 études, nous constatons des résultats distincts : cinq études (Erlam, 2003 ;Mohammed et Jaber, 2008 ;Robinson, 1996 ;Rose et Ng, 2001 ;Seliger, 1975) accordent un avantage aux méthodes déductives ; quatre études (Haight et al, 2007 ;Herron et Tomasello, 1992 ;Kim, 2007 ;Vogel et al, 2011), un avantage aux méthodes inductives ; enfin, quatre études (Abraham, 1985 ;Rosa et O'Neill, 1999 ;Shaffer, 1989 ;Takimoto, 2008) ne peuvent départager les efficiences. Par contre, on peut voir que les modalités de la méthode inductive ont un impact direct sur les conclusions de l'étude.…”

“…Or, 5 études sur les 13 concernent l'apprentissage du français, les autres étant centrées sur l'enseignement de l'anglais et de l'espagnol. Si on ne regarde que les conclusions des études concernant l'apprentissage du français, les résultats sont aussi contradictoires, trois montrant l'efficience supérieure des méthodes inductives (Haight et al, 2007 ;Herron et Tomassello, 1992 ;Vogel et al, 2011), une, celle des méthodes déductives (Erlam, 2003) et une ne démon-trant pas de différences significatives (Shaffer, 1989).…”

“…Dans plusieurs articles en didactique du français langue première (L1), (Chartrand, 1995 ;Paret, 2000 ;Nadeau et Fisher, 2006), on suggère l'utilisation de méthodes inductives, reconnaissant l'efficience accrue de ses pratiques qui permettraient une plus grande rétention des apprentissages. À l'opposé, plusieurs auteurs s'intéressant à l'apprentissage de l'anglais langue première ou langue seconde (Erlam, 2003 ;Mohammed et Jaber, 2008) proposent, quant à eux, des méthodes pédagogiques déductives, en utilisant également l'argument de l'efficience des pratiques pour justifier leur recommandation. Il semble y avoir parallèlement un retour à l'intérêt de recherche pour la dichotomie explicite/implicite (Gauthier, Bissonnette et Richard, 2013 ;Hollingsworth, Demers et Ybarra, 2012), qui peut ajouter à la confusion, ces dernières faisant appel à un construit différent.…”

A Consciousness-raising Grammar Teaching Approach Based on Grammar Teaching Dilemmas

“…For instance, Ellis (2006) states that simple rules may best be taught deductively, while more complex rules may best be taught inductively. A lot of empirical studies show learners achieve better in deductive language lessons, while others prove that inductive way is more effective (Erlam, 2003;Glaser, 2016).…”