Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No.

2 353

Effectiveness of a Guided
Inductive Versus a Deductive
Approach on the Learning of
Grammar in the Intermediate-
Level College French Classroom
Séverine Vogel
Emory University
Carol Herron
Emory University
Steven P. Cole
Research Design Associates
Holly York
Emory University

Abstract: This study investigated how to present grammatical structures to inter-

mediate-level French college students. It compared the effects of a guided inductive and a
deductive approach on short- and long-term learning of 10 structures. A mixed-methods
design was adopted to assess learning of the structures and to investigate preference of
approach. Performances in both conditions were measured through a within-subjects
design featuring a pretest/posttest and immediate posttreatment tests. A questionnaire
assessed students’ preferences and relationships between preferences and performance
were examined. Findings indicated a significantly greater effect of the guided inductive
approach on short-term learning. The long-term findings and the relationship between
preferences and performances were not significant. Analyses indicated that students who
preferred explanations of the rules performed better with a guided inductive approach.

Key words: French, deductive, guided inductive, instructional approaches, intermediate-

level, PACE

Séverine Vogel (PhD, Emory University) has recently graduated from Emory
University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Carol Herron (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Professor of French at
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Steven P. Cole (PhD, Emory University) is Director of Research Design Associates,
Yorktown Heights, New York.
Holly York (PhD, Emory University) is Senior Lecturer in the Department of French
and Italian at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
354 Summer 2011

Introduction racy remains an important component of

The adoption of language teaching prac- proficiency-oriented instruction (ACTFL,
tices aimed at developing language learners’ 1982). The principles of the proficiency
proficiency in communicative contexts has model stress form-focused instruction in a
led to research on the effects of grammar meaningful context and emphasize the
instruction on foreign language (FL) learn- importance of accuracy as a component of
ing. Discussions on how and why to teach communicative competence. An unresolved
grammar have often been linked to theories issue related to stressing form in the com-
of implicit and explicit instruction. Some municative classroom focuses on the
theorists such as Krashen (1982; Krashen & question of when and how the information
Terrell, 1983) argued that learners could regarding grammatical rules is best pro-
acquire a language implicitly through vided to learners (Erlam, 2003; Herron &
enough exposure to comprehensible input, Tomasello, 1992; Robinson, 1996; Shaffer,
rejecting the need to teach formally the lin- 1989). The debate concerns whether rules
guistic features of a FL. Others have insisted should be taught explicitly before a practice
that it was essential for learners to notice activity (a deductive approach) or whether
the various forms of the language in order a contextualized practice activity should
for the input to be processed, thus claiming precede a focus on the rule (an inductive
that some form of explicit instruction was approach).
necessary (Harley, 1989; Long, 1983; Researchers and classroom instructors
Schmidt, 1995; Scott, 1989, 1990; Swain, approach the teaching of grammar with
1984, 1998; VanPatten, 1996). In this vein, various strategies. While there seems to be a
some researchers have highlighted the consensus on how to implement a deduc-
importance of output for students to pro- tive approach, i.e., the instructor explains
cess grammatical structures they have not the rule before practicing the use of the
yet acquired and to receive feedback on target structure, inductive instructional
their emerging linguistic hypotheses approaches have been implemented in var-
(Swain, 1985). ious ways. Some rely on students to
In light of these conflicting theories, discover the rules by themselves (Shaffer,
the question of whether grammar should be 1989). Others rely on focusing students’
taught in the classroom became the focus of attention on the targeted grammatical
FL investigations. Many researchers in the structure through an oral practice session
field have agreed that some elements of followed by the completion of a model
explicit instruction, or focus on various sentence (Herron & Tomasello, 1992).
forms of the target language, could make a Adair-Hauck, Donato, and Cumo-Johans-
difference and facilitate the learning of a FL sen (2005) developed a four-stage approach
(Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002a; Aski, to teaching grammar: the PACE model.
2005; DeKeyser, 1998; Doughty & Wil- PACE relies on the use of an integrated dis-
liams, 1998; Ellis, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2008a, course or story that serves to highlight a
2008b; Fotos, 1993; Long, 1983; Norris & linguistic structure and its usage in context.
Ortega, 2000; VanPatten, 1993). Instruc- More precisely, P stands for Presentation of
tional approaches that aim at drawing the target form through a contextualized
students’ attention to linguistic forms in a story where the structure appears naturally
real communicative context are now con- and repeatedly within the story. After this
sidered most appropriate for the current initial input presentation, Attention to form
goals of FL instruction (Doughty & Wil- is given: The instructor focuses students’
liams, 1998; Ellis, 2001, 2008b; Katz & attention on a particular pattern of the lan-
Blyth, 2008; Wong & VanPatten, 2003). In guage through a practice session including
addition to the essential role of grammar in several examples. In the Co-construc-
effective communication, linguistic accu- tion phase, the instructor asks a series of
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 355

guiding questions to engage learners in a communicative context has become an

collaborative understanding of the rule or increasing concern for FL instructors.
explanation governing the target structure. Inductive and deductive teaching approach-
Finally, instruction ends with an Extension es have existed for many years but have
activity, which gives students the opportu- evolved as a result of the influence of var-
nity to practice the linguistic structure that ious movements and theories. With
has just been discussed. the emergence of the audiolingual method
The current investigation was designed in the late 1960s, researchers compared
to combine elements of the PACE model the audiolingual method, an inductive
(Adair-Hauck et al., 2005) with Herron and approach, to the cognitive code learning
Tomasello’s guided inductive techniques method, a deductive approach (Chastain &
(1992). This study expands a significant Woerdehoff, 1968; Hammerly, 1975). FL
chain of research that has investigated this learning has since then been considerably
hybrid model in elementary-level college influenced by constructivist theories of
French classrooms (Haight, 2008; Haight, learning that underline the importance of
Herron, & Cole, 2007). The primary goal of concept development and understanding as
the present study was to compare the effec- the goals of instruction rather than the
tiveness of the hybrid guided inductive development of behaviors (Fosnot, 1996).
approach to that of a traditional deductive While theoretical literature on the
approach on student learning of grammar. cognitive constructs of both inductive
While the current study used the same and deductive approaches exists, little
research design and procedures as imple- classroom experimental research has inves-
mented in previous studies, it targeted a tigated and compared their effectiveness in
new population of learners: intermediate- a communicative FL classroom (Erlam,
level students of French. In addition, the 2003; Norris & Ortega, 2000). In addition,
researchers investigated a new set of 10 the existing empirical research has pro-
grammatical structures and used a different duced conflicting results (Erlam, 2003;
immediate test format to assess inter- Herron & Tomasello, 1992; Robinson,
mediate-level student learning of grammar. 1996; Rosa & O’Neil, 1999; Shaffer, 1989).
With the acknowledgment of the impor- Each study took place in a wide range
tance for linguistic accuracy in proficiency- of circumstances, involved different popu-
oriented instruction, the role of grammar lations, used different designs, and investi-
instruction cannot be underestimated at the gated different inductive models. While the
intermediate level, often seen as a bridge to deductive condition constantly involved
more advanced content courses (Ramsay, teacher explanations (in writing or orally),
1991; Suozzo, 1981). The secondary goal of the inductive model was applied in wide-
this study was to determine students’ pre- ranging ways. Erlam (2003) used an induc-
ference of instructional approach and to tive model that lacked any attention to
examine whether there was a relationship or elicitation of the rule, resembling an
between students’ preference and their per- implicit instructional technique. Robinson
formance on the grammar tests. (1996) asked students to induce the rule for
themselves, while Rosa and O’Neil (1999)
asked students to look for the rule during
Review of Literature the presentation. Shaffer (1989) asked stu-
With a current stress on Communication as dents to verbalize the rule after the presen-
one of the content objectives of the National tation, while Herron and Tomasello (1992)
Standards (National Standards, 1999) and guided students to induce the rule after an
the adoption of the ACTFL Proficiency oral practice session by having students
Guidelines (ACTFL, 1982), the question of complete model sentences. In addition, the
how to best focus on form in an authentic nature of the participants varied in each
356 Summer 2011

study. Two studies were conducted among potential development as determined

high school learners (Erlam, 2003; Shaffer, through problem solving under adult
1989), all others at the college level. guidance or with more capable peers’’
Research by Erlam (2003), Rosa and O’Neil (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The learner acquires
(1999), and Robinson (1996) measured the language with the guidance of an expert,
effectiveness of each approach on only one suggesting that both instructors and students
grammatical structure, while Herron and play an important role in the learning pro-
Tomasello’s investigation (1992) measured cess, thus moving away from explicit/
their effect on a set of 10 structures. Herron implicit dichotomies. The PACE model
and Tomasello (1992) used a within-subjects encourages student–instructor collaboration
design to compare how a single individual and discussions about grammar in the co-
performed in both conditions, while the rest construction phase of the lesson, where the
of the studies used two treatment groups and instructor guides the student to under-
a control group. Due to varying designs, standing an underlying rule through a
learner populations, and procedures, these questioning technique. Much of the litera-
studies yielded contradictory results. Erlam ture focusing on the PACE model has
(2003) and Robinson (1996) concluded that described possible avenues for implement-
the deductive approach was more effective, ing it in the FL classroom (Adair-Hauck &
while Herron and Tomasello (1992) obtained Donato, 2002b; Chrysostome, 2000; Pae-
significant results in favor of the guided sani, 2005). However, empirical classroom
inductive approach on students’ learning. research on students’ learning of grammar
Rosa and O’Neil (1999) and Shaffer (1989) via PACE is still lacking.
obtained no significant results and argued for Haight et al. (2007) investigated the
a middle ground position. effects of both deductive and guided induc-
Recent research conducted at the ele- tive approaches on the learning of eight
mentary French college level has built upon grammatical structures in a 2nd-semester
Herron and Tomasello’s (1992) guided elementary college French course. In this
inductive study and on the PACE model to semester-long study, the inductive condi-
compare the effect of a deductive approach tion was designed after the PACE model
to that of a guided inductive approach, an (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005) and the guided
approach that requires student–instructor inductive model (Herron & Tomasello,
collaboration in the elaboration of the 1992). For the inductive condition, a con-
grammar rule. From a social constructivist textualized oral practice activity where the
perspective, interaction between the lan- targeted structure was embedded preceded
guage learner and the expert instructor is the co-construction phase and the comple-
essential for learning to occur. Adair-Hauck tion of model sentences. For the deductive
and Donato (2002a) drew on Vygotsky’s condition, the rule was provided by
theory to explain how scaffolding, or the instructor explanations in French followed
interaction between expert and learner in a by the same contextualized oral practice
problem-solving task, could help FL learn- activity. Researchers used immediate quiz-
ing by providing students the opportunity zes to assess students’ short-term learning
to reflect upon the language they are learn- while a grammar pre/posttest administered
ing with the guidance of the instructor. at the beginning and at the end of the
In particular, Vygotsky’s theory (1978) on semester assessed long-term learning and
the zone of proximal development (ZDP) retention of these structures. The results
supports collaborative discussions about revealed that students’ performance on
grammar between teachers and learners. immediate quizzes was significantly better
The ZDP is ‘‘the distance between the actual for items taught using the guided inductive
developmental level as determined by approach. Analyses that tested the effec-
independent problem solving and the tiveness of both approaches on long-term
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 357

learning revealed an overall improvement instructional approach and discovered that a

of grammar knowledge in both treatment majority of students preferred to be taught
conditions; however, no significant differ- grammatical structures with a deductive
ence between approaches was found. approach; however, the relationship between
Haight (2008) conducted a similar study preference and performance was not assessed.
among French 101 learners, using a set of Based on the literature cited above, this
12 new structures, and found similar study was framed around the following
results. Students performed better in the research questions:
guided inductive condition on the immedi-
1. What is the effect on the short-term
ate posttests. Haight found significant
learning of grammar by intermediate-
improvement of grammatical knowledge
level French students when grammati-
over time, but again, there was no sig-
cal structures are taught with a guided
nificant difference between approaches over
inductive approach versus a deductive
time. Building upon the positive effect of a
presentational approach?
guided inductive approach based on the
2. What is the effect on the long-term
PACE model in elementary French courses,
learning of grammar by intermediate-
the current study investigated its effect on
level French students when grammati-
student learning and retention of 10 gram-
cal structures are taught with a guided
matical structures in an intermediate-level
inductive approach versus a deductive
college French course.
presentational approach?
Though the above-mentioned studies
3. Which instructional approach, guided in-
on inductive/deductive teaching strategies
ductive or deductive, do students prefer?
investigated and compared the effects of
4. Is there a relationship between students’
both approaches, they seldom investigated
performance on immediate posttests
students’ preference for instructional
and their instructional preference?
approach or looked at a potential relation-
5. Is there a relationship between students’
ship between preference and performance, a
performance on the grammar posttest
gap this study was designed to fill. The lit-
and their instructional preference?
erature in the field of FL instruction focusing
on students’ perceptions and opinions has
targeted language learning as a whole (Hor-
witz, 1988) but has more rarely focused on Methodology
the learning of grammar. Schulz’s investiga- Mixed-Methods Research Designs
tions (1996, 2001) of instructors’ and The researchers adopted a mixed-methods
students’ views of the role of grammar in the design in order both to compare the effec-
FL classroom revealed that students believed tiveness of two instructional approaches to
grammar to be a necessary element of suc- teach grammar on intermediate-level stu-
cessful language learning. However, little dents’ short and long-term learning, and to
research has surveyed students’ opinions provide a better insight into students’ per-
regarding various approaches that focus sonal preference for a given teaching
on grammatical rules and their perceived approach. This study adhered to a sequen-
effectiveness. Mohamed (2004) compared tial implementation strategy (Creswell,
learners’ perceptions of inductive and deduc- 2003) in which quantitative data were col-
tive learning tasks but did not find any lected first, throughout the course of a 14-
significant differences in terms of preference. week semester, and qualitative data were
This finding can be explained by the fact collected during the last week of the seme-
that the researcher failed to expose students ster. Priority was given to the quantitative
to both conditions prior to inquiring about data and qualitative data were used in a
their preferences and opinions. Haight (2008) supporting fashion, to explain or elaborate
inquired about students’ preference for on the quantitative results.
358 Summer 2011

TABLE 1
Sample Student Characteristics by Course Section (N 5 40)

Characteristics Section A Section B Section C

Gender
Female 14 8 13
Male 2 2 1
University classification
Freshman 9 5 4
Sophomore 5 5 8
Junior 1 0 1
Senior 1 0 1
Years of Experience
Mean 4.19 3.90 4.21
Standard Deviation 1.87 1.52 2.08

Participants and Setting instruction in French, F(2,37) 5 0.10,

The participants in this study were enrolled p 5 .91.
in three sections of the intermediate-level All participants were assigned to one of
(third-semester) French course, French the three sections of French 201 through
201, at a medium-sized, southern, private, the university registrar system. Although
liberal arts university during fall 2007. The there was no random assignment, all sec-
researchers decided to include in the ana- tions were counterbalanced through a
lyses participants who (1) had pretest and within-subjects design (Herron & Toma-
posttest scores, (2) were present and had sello, 1992) further described below. The
immediate test scores for at least three three classroom instructors were graduate
treatment sessions in each condition, and students in a French literature PhD pro-
(3) answered the post-study learning pre- gram or in a joint PhD program in French
ference questionnaire. Forty of the original and Educational Studies. One of the three
51 participants met these criteria. classroom instructors was the primary
Demographic information was collec- investigator. The primary investigator
ted prior to the treatment phase through a taught all 10 lessons designed for this study
background questionnaire. Table 1 presents and administered all tests and ques-
the sample characteristics by course sec- tionnaires to the three course sections
tion. The results of a chi-square analysis participating in this study.
indicated no significant differences between
the three course sections with regard to
gender, w2 (1, N 5 40) 5 1.40, p 5 .50. The Classroom Procedures and
results of one-way analyses of variance Research Design
(ANOVA) indicated no significant differ- All research procedures and testing related
ences between the three sections with to this study occurred during the partici-
regard to university classification, F(2, pants’ regular class time and were entirely
37) 5 0.98, p 5 .39 or previous years of integrated into daily classroom activities.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 359

The goal of this third-semester French characters of the film. They were taught in
language course is to review the basic the order in which they appeared in the
structures of French and to introduce new curriculum. Although all 10 structures
grammatical concepts in order for students appeared in the course curriculum, they did
to be able to communicate with more not appear on the course syllabus. They
confidence. A story-based instructional were not assigned to students for prepara-
method, Bien Vu Bien Dit, Intermediate tion and homework so as to not interfere
French (Williams, Grace, & Roche, 2007), with the treatment.
based on a film titled Le Chemin du retour, An equivalent time samples design,
was used in this course. The film, with the which is a repeated measures design with
grammar structures embedded, served as one group of participants, was used in this
the presentational text. Everyday activities study. This within-subjects design enabled
in French 201 included presentations the researchers to compare the perfor-
and reinforcement of vocabulary, grammar mances of each individual student in
lessons, cultural readings, and listening the two different treatment conditions,
activities. The textbook presented the whereby each individual served as his or
grammatical concepts explicitly in English, her own control. This design also allowed
followed by several textbook activities. A for an equal representation of students and
workbook provided additional grammatical structures in each condition. The three sec-
practice in contextualized activities. During tions were randomly split into two groups.
regular class time, instructors could choose The first of the 10 target structures was
to introduce grammar points either deduc- taught to the first group (sections A and B)
tively or inductively. with the guided inductive approach, while
In order to compare and test the effec- the second group (section C) received a
tiveness of the guided inductive and the deductive presentation of the structure. For
deductive teaching approaches on the each subsequent grammatical structure
learning of French grammar in this inter- taught, the groups switched conditions,
mediate-level course, 10 grammatical alternating between a guided inductive and
structures were selected from the curricu- a deductive presentation. Table 2 presents
lum: (1) use of c’est vs. il est, (2) use of the the counterbalanced design.
past tense with certain verbs that either use In the guided inductive treatment con-
the auxiliary être or avoir (sortir, monter, dition, the primary investigator first
descendre, rentrer), (3) order in placement presented the targeted structure through an
of direct and indirect object pronouns, (4) interactive, meaning-based, contextualized
superlative structures, (5) relative pronoun question/answer oral activity using a Pow-
dont, (6) relative pronouns ce qui and ce que, erPoint presentation for visual support (see
(7) relative pronoun lequel, (8) use of Appendix A for a guided inductive and
causative expressions with faire, (9) ger- deductive sample lesson plan). This oral
undive, and (10) use of subjunctive vs. drill was designed to call students’ attention
infinitive with expressions of desire and to a specific structure through a series of 12
preference. These structures were selected examples in which the targeted grammar
because they are not usually the focus of an pattern was repeated. This activity required
elementary level sequence. Each of the 10 students’ oral participation. The first two
structures was also selected because it could slides of the presentation served as exam-
be clearly illustrated through a con- ples. For these two example slides, the
textualized oral activity and taught with instructor asked a question, and the stu-
either a guided inductive or a deductive dents repeated the answer chorally after the
approach. All lessons revolved around instructor. During the rest of the activity,
themes presented in the corresponding the students answered questions on
chapter of the book and/or around the the same targeted grammar pattern. They
360 Summer 2011

TABLE 2
Schedule of Treatment Order by Course Section

Structures Grammatical Pattern Group 1 (A & B) Group 2 (C)

S1 C’est vs. Il est Guided Inductive Deductive
S2 Passé composé Deductive Guided
Inductive
S3 DO/IO placement Guided Inductive Deductive
S4 Superlative Deductive Guided
Inductive
S5 Dont Guided Inductive Deductive
S6 Ce qui/ce que Deductive Guided
Inductive
S7 Lequel Guided Inductive Deductive
S8 Causative faire Deductive Guided
Inductive
S9 Gerundive Guided Inductive Deductive
S10 Subjunctive vs. Deductive Guided
infinitive Inductive

answered chorally and received feedback the co-construction of the grammatical rule
from the instructor on the accuracy of their while looking at several model sentences
responses. Students’ answers were cued by with blanks that appeared on the last slide
the visuals in the PowerPoint presentation. of the PowerPoint presentation. This colla-
For example, a description of a slide from boration took the form of instructor-
the lesson on the gerundive follows: formulated questions. For each guiding
question, students answered chorally and
[Visual in PowerPoint presentation has
orally. The instructor then gave the correct
an arrow pointing to woman walking in
response orally. The instructor did not state
a park.]
the grammar rule after the co-construction
Teacher: Camille réfléchit en se prome-
phase. Once all guiding questions had been
nant ou en écoutant de la musique?
asked and answered, students completed
[Teacher: Camille thinks while taking a
the blanks in the model sentences. After the
walk or while listening to music?]
students orally and chorally responded, the
Students: Camille réfléchit en se prome-
correct answer appeared on the screen,
nant.
providing written feedback to the students.
[Students: Camille thinks while taking
The model sentences at the end of each
a walk.]
guided inductive presentation either came
Teacher: Oui, elle réfléchit en se
directly from the drill previously practiced
promenant.
or were analogous examples when required.
[Teacher: Yes, she thinks while taking a
It is important to point out that, due to the
walk.]
need for research design rigor, all the guid-
Following this initial practice, the par- ing questions were pre-established by the
ticipants and the instructor collaborated on primary investigator, which differs from the
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 361

PACE model where the students are mar pretest designed by the primary
allowed to initiate their own questions. investigator. The pretest also served to
In the deductive condition, the pri- determine comparability of participants’
mary investigator began by explaining the grammatical competence across the three
grammatical rule orally in French. Because sections prior to the treatment phase. It
the course curriculum provided grammar consisted of 24 multiple-choice items.
explanations in English, the rules presented Twenty items focused on the targeted
in the deductive lessons were taken or structures taught and evaluated during the
adapted from a grammar textbook designed treatment phase, with 2 items per structure
to teach French as a foreign language, and taught. The 4 remaining items served as
where the rules are introduced in the target distracters and were later excluded from the
language (Grégoire & Thiévenaz, 1995). analyses. Possible scores for the grammar
In each lesson, the rule’s function was pretest ranged from 0 to 20 for the struc-
illustrated by several model sentences, tures investigated in this study. The same
identical to those found in the guided grammar test was administered at the end of
inductive presentation but without any the semester to assess students’ learning of
blanks. These model sentences appeared the 10 structures and to compare the effect
this time at the beginning of the PowerPoint of both instructional approaches over time
presentation. After this initial explanation, (see Appendix B).
students participated in the same meaning-
based oral activity, as in the guided induc- Immediate Posttreatment Tests
tive condition, to practice the use of the An immediate test was administered fol-
target structure previously explained. lowing each presentation of a grammatical
After the presentation of each gramma- structure to assess participants’ under-
tical structure in both conditions, an standing of the target structure and ability
immediate test was administered, collected, to use it in an analogous context. All 10
and scored by the primary investigator. immediate tests were also created by the
Only one grammar lesson was taught per primary investigator. They contained four
class period, and each grammar lesson last- open-ended items with possible total scores
ed no longer than 15 minutes. After the ranging from 0 to 8. Students were asked to
immediate posttreatment test was adminis- create full sentences on all test items using
tered, each section resumed its classroom elements given in parentheses (see Appen-
activities with its respective instructor. dix C). Partial or full credit was awarded on
Because the primary investigator in this the immediate tests, and each item had a
study taught all structures to all three sec- possible score of 0, 1, or 2. Immediate test
tions, a few of her classes were videotaped total percentage scores for the guided
in order to assess potential researcher bias inductive and the deductive conditions
in favor of one condition over another. were calculated at the end of the treatment
phase based on the number of structures for
Instruments which each participant was present. There-
Background Questionnaire fore, if students missed class on a day when
This questionnaire was designed to provide one of the structures was taught and tested,
demographic information about the sample that missing score was not counted in their
as well as information regarding the parti- total score.
cipants’ FL learning history.
Learning Preference Questionnaire
Grammar Pretest and Posttest Quantitative and qualitative data regarding
The participants’ baseline knowledge of the students’ preferences for and experiences
10 grammatical structures was assessed at with the two presentational approaches
the beginning of the semester with a gram- were collected through a post-study learn-
362 Summer 2011

ing preference questionnaire administered TABLE 3

at the end of the treatment phase. This
Pretest Means and Standard Devia-
questionnaire included open-ended items
tions by Course Section (N 5 40)
asking students to state their preferences
and opinions regarding each of the instruc-
Section N M SD
tional approaches used in the investigation
(see Appendix D). A 16 7.31 2.63
B 10 7.80 2.94
Oral Interviews
To further assess students’ preference, qua- C 14 8.71 2.89
litative data were collected through parti-
cipants’ oral interviews. Six studentsF4
female and 2 maleFwere interviewed after conducted to compare participants’ pretest
the quantitative data collection phase. The scores by course section. The results indi-
principal investigator interviewed each cated no statistically significant difference
participant for about 10 to 15 minutes. for students’ performance on the grammar
These short interviews were designed to pretest scores for the 10 structures taught in
elicit students’ preference of grammar this study F(2,37) 5 .95, p 5 .396.
instructional approach and opinions
regarding each of the approaches featured
in this study (see Appendix E). Each inter- Preliminary Analyses: Instruments
view was tape-recorded and transcribed An internal consistency estimate of the
verbatim after completion. Both the inter- posttest reliability was computed for the 20
view transcripts and the responses to the items pertaining to the 10 structures inves-
open-ended items of the learning pre- tigated. The value of the alpha coefficient of
ference questionnaires were examined and .72 indicated satisfactory reliability of this
coded independently. The coded data were instrument. Item difficulties for the posttest
then reexamined to identify similarities, dif- items ranged from .28 to .82, indicating an
ferences, and contradictions existing across overall acceptable range of item difficulty
participants’ experiences or within one par- for the pretest and the posttest.
ticipant’s experience. A triangulation of the Prior to conducting analyses on the
two data sources provided corroborating immediate tests, an inter-rater reliability
evidence and ensured reliability of the ana- coefficient was calculated to assess relia-
lysis (Creswell, 2003). While the less bility of the scoring. A second rater was
structured interview data provided deeper trained to grade the tests using a grading
insights into students’ experience, it also rubric established by the primary investi-
provided related information on the more gator. The correlation coefficient for inter-
structured open-ended questions to which rater reliability of r 5 .98 indicated high
all participants responded. reliability for the scoring of the immediate
quizzes. Internal consistency estimates of
reliability were also conducted for each
Results test. Values for the Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
Preliminary Analyses: Pretest cient ranged from .43 to .95, with eight
Differences tests having a reliability coefficient alpha
Table 3 presents the pretest means and above .70, indicating satisfactory reliability
standard deviations by course section. In of these instruments. Item difficulties for
order to assess possible variability in gram- these 40 test items ranged between .21 (test
mar knowledge among students across the 4, item 2) and .95 (test 1, item 4). Thirty-
three sections participating in this study, a two of the 40 items had item difficulty rang-
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was ing between .20 and .80 (all items of tests 2,
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 363

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), and 8 items instructional approach on participants’

had difficulty above .80 (all items of tests 1 long-term learning and retention of the 10
and 3). grammatical structures, a two (pretest,
posttest)  two (deductive, guided induc-
Analysis of Research Question 1: What tive) repeated-measures ANOVA was
conducted. The results indicated a significant
is the effect on the short-term learning main effect for time F(1,39) 5 38.43, po.001,
of grammar by intermediate-level partial Z2 5 .50, indicating an overall
French students when grammatical improvement in grammar knowledge over the
structures are taught with a guided course of the semester. However, the results
inductive approach versus a deductive indicated no significant main effect for
presentational approach? approach, F(1,39) 5 .04, p 5 .837, and no
To assess the effect of a guided inductive time by approach interaction effect, F(1,
versus a deductive approach on partici- 39) 5 .62, p 5 .438 (see Table 6). The pretest-
pants’ short-term learning of the 10 to-posttest score increases were significant
grammatical structures, a paired-samples for both the guided inductive condition,
t test was conducted on the participants’ t (39) 5 4.90, po.001, d 5 .77, and the deduc-
total guided inductive and deductive test tive condition t (39) 5 4.40, po.001, d 5 .70.
percentage scores. Table 4 presents the t test
results. There was a statistically significant Analysis of Research Question 3:
difference at the .05 level between condi- Which instructional approach,
tions: Students performed better in the guided inductive or deductive,
guided inductive condition (M 5 .82, SD 5 do students prefer?
.20) than in the deductive condition In order to assess participants’ preferences
(M 5 .76, SD 5 .21), t(39) 5 2.30, p 5 .027, for the two instructional approaches fea-
d 5 .36. tured in this study, frequency count
distributions were calculated from the post-
Analysis of Research Question 2: What study learning preference questionnaire.
is the effect on the long-term learning Eighty percent of the participants (n 5 32)
of grammar by intermediate-level reported that they preferred being explicitly
taught the rules first (the deductive
French students when grammatical
approach), 15% (n 5 6) reported that they
structures are taught with a guided preferred discovering the rule with the gui-
inductive approach versus a deductive dance of the instructor (the guided
presentational approach? inductive approach), and 5% (n = 2) repor-
Table 5 presents the pretest and posttest ted no particular preference. Of those
mean scores and standard deviations by participants who preferred the deductive
treatment conditions. To assess the effect of approach, 18.8% reported having a ‘‘mod-

TABLE 4
Paired t Test Results for Immediate Quizzes (N 5 40)

Approach M SD t ES d Power

Guided Inductive .82 .20 2.30 .36 .61

Deductive .76 .21
po.05
364 Summer 2011

TABLE 5
Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations (N 5 40)

Pretest Posttest
Scores M SD M SD

Total 7.92 2.28 10.48 3.81

Guided Inductive 4.07 2.22 5.20 2.32
Deductive 3.85 1.73 5.28 2.12

erate preference,’’ 46.9% a ‘‘large pre- approach appears to be a teaching model

ference,’’ and 34.4% ‘‘a very large that makes students think more; yet stu-
preference’’ for this approach. Among those dents perceived that it creates a greater
who preferred the guided inductive chance for error, a lack of confidence, and
approach, 16.7% reported having a ‘‘mod- confusion.
erate preference,’’ 50.0% a ‘‘large
preference,’’ and 33.3% ‘‘a very large pre- Analysis of Research Question 4:
ference’’ for this approach. Results of the
Is there a relationship between
qualitative analysis conducted to further
understand students’ preferences and per- students’ performance on the
ceptions of these teaching approaches immediate posttests and their
showed that having the rules explained first instructional preference?
tended to make students feel more Means and standard deviations of immedi-
confident about their ability to learn and ate posttests by preferred approach are
use the language, leading them to believe presented in Table 7.
that they would produce more accurate To explore possible relationships be-
speech or writing in given tasks. Students tween the participants’ preference for a
acknowledged, however, that the deductive specific instructional approach and their
approach is a more passive type of learning scores on immediate tests, Pearson Product
than learning through examples first. Moment correlation coefficients were com-
Some recognized that a guided inductive puted. The results of the correlation
TABLE 6
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Long-Term Learning (N 5 40)

Source df SS MS F Z2
Time 1 65.02 65.02 38.43 .50
Error 39 65.97 1.69
Approach 1 .225 .225 .04 .001
Error 39 203.77 5.22
Time  Approach 1 .90 .90 .62 .02
Error 39 57.10 1.464
po.001
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 365

TABLE 7
Immediate Quiz Mean Percentage Scores and Standard Deviations by
Preference (N 5 38)

Preference
Deductive (N 5 32) Inductive (N 5 6)

Scores M SD M SD
Guided Inductive .81 .21 .93 .07
Deductive .73 .22 .91 .08

analyses indicated no significant relation- Analysis of Research Question 5: Is

ship between a preferred approach and there a relationship between students’
performance on immediate tests, r 5 .23, performance on the grammar posttest
p 5 .161 (inductive) and r 5 .31, p 5 .062
and their instructional preference?
(deductive).
To further analyze the relationship Means and standard deviations of the
between preferences and test scores, paired posttest scores by preferred approach are
samples t tests were conducted to compare presented in Table 8. To explore possible
participants’ percentage scores within each relationships between the participants’ pre-
preferred approach. The results revealed ference for a specific instructional approach
that participants who preferred the deduc- and their scores on the grammar posttest,
tive condition performed better in the Pearson Product Moment correlation coeffi-
inductive condition (M 5 .81, SD 5 .21) cients were computed. The results of the
than in the deductive condition (M 5 .73, correlation analyses showed that there was no
SD 5 .22), t(31) 5 2.39, p 5 .023. Due to significant relationship between a preferred
the small number of students who preferred approach and participants’ performance on
the inductive condition (n 5 6), such ana- the grammar posttest, r 5.20, p 5 . 223
lyses were inconclusive for that group. (inductive) and r 5 .16, p 5 .324 (deductive).

TABLE 8
Posttest Scores and Standard Deviations by Preference (N 5 38)

Preference
Deductive (N 5 32) Inductive (N 5 6)

Scores M SD M SD
Guided Inductive 5.06 2.29 6.33 2.33
Deductive 5.25 2.04 6.17 2.13
366 Summer 2011

Discussion greatest when assessed through such activ-

ities (Ellis, 2008b; Norris & Ortega, 2000).
Strengths and Limitations Future research should focus on investigat-
An important strength of this study was that ing the effects of guided inductive and
all lessons and tests were entirely integrated deductive instructional approaches on the
into the students’ daily classroom routine. development of other skills, such as speak-
The instructional approaches featured in ing, reading, or listening, in the short or
this investigation exposed students to long term.
language in a meaningful context, through
the use of PowerPoint presentations that
focused on contemporary relevant material
tied to the curriculum movie used in Question 1: What is the effect on the
French 201 courses. short-term learning of grammar by
However, before drawing conclusions intermediate-level French students
from the current study, the limitations
of this research must be stressed. First,
when grammatical structures are
the sample of students participating in taught with a guided inductive
this quasi-experimental study was not approach versus a deductive
randomly selected; therefore, general- presentational approach?
izability cannot be extended to all con- The results of this study present statistically
texts and settings. It should also be empha- significant evidence of the positive effect of
sized that in this investigation, only one the guided inductive approach on inter-
type of inductive approach was examined mediate-level college French students’
and that only one particular level of short-term learning of the 10 targeted
French students, i.e., college intermediate- grammatical structures. These findings are
level French students, was involved. Results consistent with previous investigations
can therefore not be generalized to all conducted in elementary-level college
levels of FL learners. In addition, while the French courses that used guided inductive
guided inductive approach presented in this models (Haight, 2008; Haight et al., 2007;
study was based on the PACE model, it is Herron & Tomasello, 1992). Therefore,
important to note that the co-construction taken as a group, these results indicate a
phase differed. With PACE, students significant pattern across several levels of
are allowed to intervene and ask their college French, pointing to the positive
own questions during the co-construction effects of a guided inductive approach to
phase. However, due to the need for introduce certain grammatical structures in
research design rigor, the primary investi- the classroom. It should be noted that stu-
gator pre-established the guiding questions dents performed well on the immediate
used in this study. While students were tests, whether taught with the guided
not allowed to ask their own questions, inductive or the deductive presentational
they actively responded to the instructor’s approach. Over the duration of the
questioning. study, students answered 82% of the quiz
Finally, only 10 grammatical structures items in the inductive condition correctly
were investigated, and grammatical skills and 76% of the quiz items in the deductive
were measured only through written tasks condition. As previously mentioned, the
in a condition of controlled language pro- grammatical structures chosen for this
duction. Constructed response activities study were taken from the intermediate-
have commonly been used to assess stu- level curriculum. These structures are not
dents’ learning of grammar, and the typically the focus of instruction in ele-
magnitude of the effect of different types of mentary-level college French courses.
instructional approaches has in fact been While it is difficult to know whether stu-
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 367

dents coming from high school French Question 2: What is the effect on the
programs had previously encountered long-term learning of grammar by
them, the pretest results showed that stu- intermediate-level French students
dents had not yet mastered the concepts
evaluated in this study. Immediate tests
when grammatical structures are
were administered directly after a lesson taught with a guided inductive
was taught, which might account for the approach versus a deductive
rather high percentage of correct scores in presentational approach?
both conditions. While the researchers did Contrary to the analyses conducted to
not assess the relative difficulty of each assess the effectiveness of both approaches
structure taught, the counterbalanced on students’ short-term learning, the find-
design chosen for this study controlled for ings of the long-term learning analyses did
potential differences in the difficulty of the not yield a statistically significant difference
structures and for possible individual dif- with regard to the effect of the two pre-
ferences as well. Each structure was taught sentational approaches over time. While the
in both conditions, and each student was difference in teaching approaches over
present in both treatment conditions, serv- time was not significant, the improvement
ing as his or her own control. in students’ knowledge of the targeted
The results of this study on the effect structures was statistically significant.
of the guided inductive approach on The percentage correct on the pretest of
French 201 students’ short-term learning 39.6% increased to 52.4% on the posttest.
are consistent with cognitive theories that The posttest remained a rather difficult
view learning as an active process, requiring test compared to the immediate tests. The
the engagement of the student. Many sec- percentage of correct answers on the post-
ond language acquisition theorists believe test suggested that these structures were
that the language learner is the one who more difficult to retain. Due to the need to
should act, construct, and actively partici- control for extraneous variables, no addi-
pate in learning tasks rather than being the tional exposure to or practice of the 10
receiver of external stimuli (Ausubel, 1968; grammatical structures was provided after
Ellis, 1990). When taught with a guided the initial lesson. In a normal classroom
inductive model, students are required to setting, additional practice might lead to
think about the linguistic structure as they greater gains over time.
receive oral input before being asked to These results on long-term learning
formulate the rule with the guidance achievement are consistent with the pre-
and feedback of their instructor. Learners vious studies conducted, as they also docu-
are encouraged to practice manipulating mented significantly improved grammar
the input, form a hypothesis about the knowledge over time but no main effect for
rule, and test their hypothesis during the instructional approach or interaction effect
co-construction phase. Herron and Toma- (Haight, 2008; Haight et al., 2007). Several
sello (1992) argued that the active explanations could account for this lack of
engagement of the students during the oral significant findings. Instructor effect needs
practice exercises and during the comple- to be considered as a potential limitation to
tion of the model sentencesFin other obtaining long-term results. While treat-
words, the processing of linguistic data and ments were administered by only the
the testing of hypothesesFis important primary investigator to eliminate instructor
for the construction of the target language. effect, this type of confounding could pos-
In this guided inductive model, both sibly be present given the intrinsic differ-
instructor and students engaged actively in ences between instructors’ teaching styles
discussions about the rule, facilitating and the way they conducted their class-
learning. rooms on a daily basis. Contrary to the
368 Summer 2011

grammar quizzes administered immediately that neither approach inhibited learning

after the treatments to assess short-term over time. Therefore, communicative ap-
learning of the 10 structures, the grammar proaches to teaching grammar that use
posttest was administered at the end of the contextualized examples and meaningful
semester. This delay in the posttest assess- materials could possibly enhance the reten-
ment left more time for possible instructor tion of some grammatical patterns in
effects and other extraneous variables to intermediate-level college French.
confound the effect of the teaching approa-
ches on student learning. Moreover,
although the grammatical structures inves- Questions 3, 4, and 5: (3) Which
tigated in this study were not assigned to instructional approach, guided
students for preparation and did not appear inductive or deductive, do students
on the course syllabus, they were present in
the course curriculum. It is possible that
prefer? (4) Is there a relationship
students may have come in contact with between students’ performance on
targeted structures outside of this investi- immediate posttests and their
gation, as they were presented in their instructional preference? (5) Is there
textbook and workbook. This possible a relationship between students’
encounter could have confounded the performance on the posttest and their
treatment effect over time.
Even though a differential effect of
instructional preference?
teaching approach could not be detected in A secondary goal of this study was to deter-
the long-term analyses, the fact that stu- mine students’ preferred instructional
dents’ knowledge of these particular 10 approach. Eighty percent of the participants
structures significantly increased through- stated that they preferred to have the rules
out the semester is an important finding. It explicitly explained by the instructor prior
reminds educators, as many scholars have to engaging in a practice activity. These
emphasized, that explicit instruction or findings were consistent with previous stud-
instruction that focuses on form, regardless ies inquiring about students’ preference
of the approach with which a grammatical for instructional approach in elementary
concept is presented, does make a differ- French. Haight (2008) found that 73% of
ence in FL learning (Ellis, 2008b; Long, French 101 students reported a preference
1983; Norris & Ortega, 2000). When stu- for having the rules explained entirely first.
dents’ attention is called to a specific Regardless of the amount of prior experi-
function of a language, whether through an ence in FL instruction, the results of the
inductive or a deductive presentation, current investigation provide additional
learning occurs. This finding, even though evidence that a large majority of students
not consistent with our findings on short- prefer an explanation of grammatical rules
term learning, is of importance and may prior to practice.
potentially suggest that in order to acquire The qualitative data analysis provided a
a FL, and specifically here grammatical deeper insight into students’ preference for
accuracy, the two approaches could be the deductive approach. Students perceived
complementary (Hammerly, 1975; Shaffer, that explicit rule explanations provide them
1989). Because many intermediate-level FL with a more extensive ‘‘knowledge’’ of the
learners continue on to literature and/or language and could enable them to form
civilization courses, the findings are rele- ‘‘good grammatical habits.’’ Conversely,
vant as they document improved grammar participants perceived that the guided
performance. While no approach was inductive approach could foster more con-
more effective than the other on students’ fusion, second-guessing, and frustration.
long-term retention, the findings indicated They also believed it could ‘‘ingrain more
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 369

mistakes earlier on.’’ Students’ preference However, although 80% of the participants
often related to past FL instruction experi- preferred the deductive approach, the
ence. Students were ‘‘used to’’ learning the results of our quantitative analyses showed
rules first and felt more confident and com- that the guided inductive approach had a
fortable with a similar teaching approach. significant positive effect on students’ short-
The participants stressed the need to term learning of grammar, highlighting a
develop confidence in their ability to pro- discrepancy between students’ preferences
duce language. A majority of students and their performance. With oral techni-
described feeling more confident in their ques used in both treatment conditions
ability to complete tasks, in writing or along with the use of relevant materials tied
speaking, when knowing the function of a to the curriculum, it is possible that stu-
particular structure prior to engaging in an dents followed along with each lesson
activity. Rule explanations were thus per- without experiencing negative reactions to
ceived as an important advanced organizer. either approach. This lack of negative reac-
Accuracy appeared an important concern tions could have allowed learning to occur
for intermediate-level French students who despite personal preferences. Results of the
believed that explicit explanations could analyses conducted to assess the relation-
lead to more grammatically accurate out- ship between students’ preference and their
put: ‘‘You are always speaking correctly if performance on the immediate tests and on
you know the rules,’’ whereas students per- the posttest indicated that students’ pre-
ceived that one ‘‘may start to form bad ference did not influence their perfor-
habits, using the grammar before you know mance on the tests. The lack of relationship
the rules.’’ However, a few participants also between preference and immediate test
viewed inductive teaching strategies as scores reinforces our findings on the effects
enhancing confidence and accuracy. Through of guided induction on students’ short-term
practice first, students were able to see learning. The non-association of preference
‘‘when’’ the grammar was used in conversa- and posttest scores indicated that pre-
tion. This finding on increasing confidence ference was not related to the finding that
relates to Harlow and Muyskens’ (1994) the long-term learning of grammatical
findings on the goals of FL instruction at the structures did not differ as a function of
intermediate level. The affective goal of teaching approach.
increased self-confidence in overall use of the The discrepancy found between pre-
language was in the top third of goals set for ference and performance may be a starting
intermediate-level instruction, as ranked by point for future research. In the current
students (Harlow & Muyskens, 1994). Parti- study, students did not receive an explana-
cipants in the present study linked grammar tion of the two approaches that were
instruction to the development of confidence alternately used over the course of the
in language production and therefore to suc- semester. Perhaps the findings would have
cessful language learning, a finding that is differed if the researchers had explained the
consistent with Schulz (1996). pedagogical aspects of each approach prior
Participants’ concern for accuracy and to the lessons, thus giving students the
fear of error appeared to suggest that a guid- opportunity to reflect upon them as they
ed inductive lesson might potentially raise went through the lessons. In addition, a
their affective filter. According to Krashen discussion with the interviewees on the
(1982), the affective filter needs to be low in discrepancy between preference and per-
order for learners to notice and process the formance may have also yielded additional
input. On the other hand, a deductive les- insights. However, due to time constraints,
son seems to create a learning environment such a discussion was not possible. Future
where students are off the defensive and research should also assess participants’
where their affective filter remains low. perceptions and preferences prior to the
370 Summer 2011

experiment and examine whether and how the rules are explained first by the instruc-
these preferences change over time. tor to a model of learning that stresses the
co-construction of grammatical explana-
tions with the students.
Conclusion
Linguistic accuracy has an important place
References
in the proficiency-oriented, communicative
FL classroom. As Omaggio Hadley (2000, p. ACTFL. (1982). Proficiency guidelines (rev. ed.
99) affirmed, ‘‘Various forms of instruction 1999). Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.
and evaluative feedback can be useful in Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (2002a). The
facilitating the progression of their [the PACE model: A story-based approach to mean-
students’] skills towards more precise and ing and form for standards-based language
learning. The French Review, 76, 265–276.
coherent language use.’’ This investigation
presented empirical evidence of the sig- Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (2002b). The
PACE model: Actualizing the Standards
nificant effect of a guided inductive
through storytelling: ‘‘Le Bras, la jambe et le
teaching approach on intermediate-level ventre.’’ The French Review, 76, 278–296.
college French students’ short-term learn-
Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & Cumo-
ing of French grammatical structures. The Johanssen, P. (2005). Using a story-based
findings of this study are significant, as they approach to teach grammar. In J. L. Shrum &
indicate that guided inductive strategies E. W. Glisan (Eds.), Teacher’s handbook: Con-
have measurable beneficial effects on learn- textualizing language instruction (3rd ed., pp.
ing grammar at a level beyond first year. 189–213). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Through guided inductive teaching strategies Aski, J. M. (2005). Alternatives to mechanical
instructors may be able to help intermediate- drills for the early stages of language practice
level students of French produce more accu- in foreign language textbooks. Foreign Lan-
guage Annals, 38, 333–343.
rate language in controlled language tasks
and prepare students to succeed in future Ausubel, J. (1968). Educational psychology: A
academic writing. This investigation also cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
presented evidence that students prefer to be
taught the grammar rules first prior to enga- Chastain, K. D., & Woerdehoff, F. J. (1968). A
ging in a practice activity. While a majority of methodological study comparing the audio-
lingual habit theory and the cognitive code-
students appeared convinced that they learning theory. Modern Language Journal, 52,
learned grammar better this way, the quanti- 268–279.
tative results supported the finding that
Chrysostome, L. I. (2000). Introducing
guided inductive teaching strategies have, on and implementing the PACE model in Benin:
the contrary, a significant positive effect on Culture and grammar through stories
students’ immediate learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uni-
In conclusion, evidence from this study versity of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
and other recent research projects have Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualita-
shown the positive effects of guided induc- tive, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
tion on the student learning of grammar. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Even though student preference may DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form:
appear to favor a deductive approach, the Cognitive perspectives on learning and practi-
guided inductive model has performed sig- cing second language grammar. In C. Doughty
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
nificantly better than the deductive model second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cam-
at both the elementary and intermediate bridge: Cambridge University Press.
levels in college French. With this knowl-
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998).
edge, perhaps instructors, as well as the Focus on form in classroom second language
creators of pedagogical materials, will move acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
away from the traditional approach where Press.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 371

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language Harlow, L., & Muyskens, J. A. (1994). Prio-
acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. rities for intermediate-level language instruc-
tion. Modern Language Journal, 78, 141–154.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language
teaching. London: Oxford University Press. Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquir-
ing grammar structures by guided induction.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating
The French Review, 65, 708–718.
form-focused instruction. Language Learning,
51, 1–46. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about lan-
guage learning of beginning university foreign
Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar
language students. Modern Language Journal,
instruction in the second/foreign language
curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), 72, 283–294.
New perspectives on grammar teaching in Katz, S. L., & Blyth, C. S. (2008). What is
second language classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mah- grammar? In S. L. Katz & J. Watzinger-Tharp
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 grammar: Theoretical
Ellis, R. (2008a). Principles of instructed second approaches and their application in the L2 class-
language acquisition. CAL Digest. Retrieved room (pp. 2–14). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
February 1, 2008, from http://www.cal.org. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice
Ellis, R. (2008b). The study of second language in second language acquisition. New York: Per-
acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Uni- gamon Press.
versity Press. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The nat-
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and ural approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
inductive instruction on the acquisition of Long, M. (1983). Does second language
direct object pronouns in French as a second instruction make a difference? A review of the
language. Modern Language Journal, 87, 242– research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
260.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising
Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, task: A learner perspective. ELT Journal, 58,
perspective and practice. New York: Teachers 228–237.
College Press.
National Standards in Foreign Language Edu-
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and cation Project. (1999). Standards for foreign
noticing through focus on form: Grammar language learning: Preparing for the 21st cen-
task performance versus formal instruction. tury (2nd ed.). Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.
Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Does type of
Grégoire, M., & Thiévenaz, O. (1995). Gram- instruction make a difference? Substantive
maire progressive du français. Paris: CLE findings from a meta-analytic review. Lan-
International. guage Learning, 51, 157–213.
Haight, C. (2008). The effects of guided induc- Omaggio Hadley, A. (2000). Teaching language
tive, deductive, and garden path instructional in context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
approaches and techniques on the learning of
grammatical patterns and deviations in the Paesani, K. (2005). Literary texts and gram-
beginning-level foreign language classroom mar instruction: Revisiting the inductive pre-
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Emory sentation. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 15–23.
University, Georgia. Ramsay, R. (1991). French in action and the
Haight, C., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). grammar question. The French Review, 65,
The effects of inductive and deductive instruc- 255–266.
tional approaches on the learning of grammar Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and
in the elementary foreign language classroom. complex second language rules under impli-
Foreign Language Annals, 40, 288–311. cit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed
Hammerly, H. (1975). The deduction/induc- conditions. Studies in Second Language Acqui-
tion controversy. Modern Language Journal, 59, sition, 18, 27–77.
15–18. Rosa, E., & O’Neil, M. D. (1999). Explicit-
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in ness, intake, and the issue of awareness.
French immersion: A classroom experiment. Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second
Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359. Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.
372 Summer 2011

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and for- Sacramento: California State Department of

eign language learning: A tutorial on the role Education.
of attention and awareness in learning. In R.
Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in for- Swain, M. (1985). Communicative compe-
eign language learning. Manoa, HI: Second tence: Some roles of comprehensible input
Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. and comprehensible output in its develop-
ment. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the second language acquisition (pp. 235–256).
foreign language classroom: Student and teach- New York: Newbury House.
ers’ views on error correction and the role of
grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through
conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Wil-
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in liams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
student and teacher perceptions concerning language acquisition (pp. 64–82). Cambridge:
the role of grammar instruction and corrective Cambridge University Press.
feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language
Journal, 85, 244–258. VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for
the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Lan-
Scott, V. (1989). An empirical study of explicit guage Annals, 26, 435–450.
and implicit teaching strategies in French.
Modern Language Journal, 73, 14–22. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and
grammar instruction: Theory and research.
Scott, V. (1990). Explicit and implicit gram- Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
mar teaching strategies: New empirical data.
The French Review, 63, 779–789. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:
The development of higher psychological pro-
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of induc- cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
tive and deductive approaches to teaching Press.
foreign languages. Modern Language Journal,
73, 395–403. Williams, A., Grace, C., & Roche, C. (2007).
Bien vu bien dit, intermediate French. New
Suozzo, A. G. Jr. (1981). Once more with York: McGraw-Hill.
content: Shifting emphasis in intermediate
French. The French Review, 54, 405–411. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evi-
dence is in: Drills are out. Foreign Language
Swain, M. (1984). A review of immersion edu- Annals, 32, 403–420.
cation in Canada: Research and evaluation
studies. In Studies on immersion education: A Submitted October 23, 2009
collection of U.S. educators (pp. 87–112). Accepted August 18, 2010

APPENDIX A

Sample Guided Inductive and Deductive Lesson Plan

Leçon 9 Le gérondif Guided Inductive

I. Practice Activity
Context: Dans la vidéo, Camille parle avec Jeanne de l’histoire de son grand père. Elle boit
un café en e´coutant Jeanne, elle comprend mieux ce qui s’est passé en écoutant.
Camille est une jeune fille dynamique qui fait beaucoup de choses en même temps. Dans
les exemples suivants nous allons discuter des actions que fait Camille dans la vie de tous
les jours. Répondons ensemble aux questions.

Ecoutez les exemples et répétez les réponses après moi.

Slide 1: T: Ici, elle conduit en mangeant un croissant ou en buvant un thé? Répétez
Elle conduit en mangeant un croissant.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 373

T: Oui, elle conduit en mangeant un croissant.

Slide 2: T: Ici, elle se promène en chantant ou en pleurant? Répétez Elle se prome`ne
en chantant.
T: Oui, elle se promène en chantant.
Maintenant recommençons, répondez aux questions.
Slide 3: T: Ici, elle conduit en mangeant un croissant ou en buvant un thé?
T: Elle conduit en mangeant un croissant.
Slide 4: T: Ici, elle se promène en chantant ou en pleurant?
T: Elle se promène en chantant.
Slide 5: T: Elle lit le journal en écoutant de la musique ou en regardant la télévision?
T: Elle lit le journal en regardant la télévision.
Slide 6: T: Elle dit bonjour à ses amis en entrant ou en sortant du café?
T: Elle dit bonjour à ses amis en entrant.
Slide 7: T: Elle leur dit au revoir en arrivant au café ou en quittant le café?
T: Elle leur dit au revoir en quittant le café.
Slide 8: T: Elle s’amuse en jouant aux cartes ou en travaillant?
T: Elle s’amuse en jouant aux cartes.
Slide 9: T: Elle travaille en déjeunant ou en dormant?
T: Elle travaille en déjeunant.
Slide 10: T: Elle réfléchit en se promenant ou en écoutant de la musique?
T: Elle réfléchit en écoutant de la musique.
Slide 11: T: Elle boit de l’eau en faisant du sport ou en faisant du shopping?
T: Elle boit de l’eau en faisant du sport.
Slide 12: T: Elle achète des fruits en faisant des courses ou en faisant du sport?
T: Elle achète des fruits en faisant des courses.
Slide 13: T: Elle mange en parlant au téléphone ou en chantant?
T: Elle mange en parlant au téléphone.
Slide 14: T: Enfin, elle rêve en dormant ou en travaillant?
T: Elle rêve en dormant.
II. Co-Construction
Slide 15: Que fait Camille le matin à 9 heures?
1. Elle se promène ____ chantant.
2. Elle mange ____ parlant au téléphone.
3. Elle dit bonjour ____entrant dans le café.
Regardons ces phrases ensemble
1. Dans chaque phrase, combien de verbes voyez-vous? Combien de sujets voyez-vous?
2. Ces actions se passent-elle en même temps, ou à des moments différents?
3. Quelle est la forme du premier verbe?
4. Comment se termine le deuxième verbe dans les phrases que vous voyez?
5. C’est le gérondif ou l’infinitif? Quelle est la forme infinitive de ß chantant  , ß parlant 
et ß entrant  ?
6. Quel petit mot utilise-t-on mot pour former le gérondif et qui se trouve entre les deux
verbes?
Leçon 9 Le gérondif Deductive
I. Rule Explanation
On utilise le gérondif pour exprimer la simultanéité de deux actions réalisées par un même
sujet. Le gérondif est introduit par la préposition ß en  . Il se forme à partir du radical de
la 2e personne du pluriel se termine par ß ant  .1
374 Summer 2011

Exemples:
1. Elle se promène en chantant.
2. Elle mange en parlant au téléphone.
3. Elle dit bonjour en entrant dans le café.
II. Practice Activity
Camille est une jeune fille dynamique qui fait beaucoup de choses en même temps. Dans
les exemples suivants nous allons discuter des actions que fait Camille dans la vie de tous
les jours. Répondons ensemble aux questions en utilisant le gérondif.

Ecoutez les exemples et répétez les réponses après moi.

Slide 1: T: Ici, elle conduit en mangeant un croissant ou en buvant un thé? Répétez
Elle conduit en mangeant un croissant.
T: Oui, elle conduit en mangeant un croissant.
Slide 2: T: Ici, elle se promène en chantant ou en pleurant? Répétez Elle se prome`ne
en chantant.
T: Oui, elle se promène en chantant.
Maintenant recommençons, répondez aux questions.
Slide 3: T: Ici, elle conduit en mangeant un croissant ou en buvant un thé?
T: Elle conduit en mangeant un croissant.
Slide 4: T: Ici, elle se promène en chantant ou en pleurant?
T: Elle se promène en chantant.
Slide 5: T: Elle lit le journal en écoutant de la musique ou en regardant la télévision?
T: Elle lit le journal en regardant la télévision.
Slide 6: T: Elle dit bonjour à ses amis en entrant ou en sortant du café?
T: Elle dit bonjour à ses amis en entrant.
Slide 7: T: Elle leur dit au revoir en arrivant au café ou en quittant le café?
T: Elle leur dit au revoir en quittant le café.
Slide 8: T: Elle s’amuse en jouant aux cartes ou en travaillant?
T: Elle s’amuse en jouant aux cartes.
Slide 9: T: Elle travaille en déjeunant ou en dormant?
T: Elle travaille en déjeunant.
Slide 10: T: Elle réfléchit en se promenant ou en écoutant de la musique?
T: Elle réfléchit en écoutant de la musique.
Slide 11: T: Elle boit de l’eau en faisant du sport ou en faisant du shopping?
T: Elle boit de l’eau en faisant du sport.
Slide 12: T: Elle achète des fruits en faisant des courses ou en faisant du sport?
T: Elle achète des fruits en faisant des courses.
Slide 13: T: Elle mange en parlant au téléphone ou en chantant?
T: Elle mange en parlant au téléphone.
Slide 14: T: Enfin, elle rêve en dormant ou en travaillant?
T: Elle rêve en dormant.

Note
1. Adapted from Gregoire & Thiévenaz, 1995, p. 148.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 375

APPENDIX B
Grammar Pre/Posttest
French 201 Pre/Post Grammar Test
Imagine that you have been doing an internship as a journalist working for a French
television channel. You are writing a letter to your best friend to tell him/her about your
experiences. The following are several sentences discussing professional and personal life,
travel and cultural specificities of France related to your experience as a journalist.
Please read each sentence and circle the answer below that correctly completes the sentence.
You will not be penalized for guessing, and your performance on this test will by no means
affect your course grade.
1. Les personnes avec qui je travaille chaque jour, ________ des rédacteurs profession-
nels.

a. ils sont
b. c’est
c. il est
d. ce sont
2. Je travaille au centre de Paris ! Paris c’est vraiment ________ du monde !

a. la plus intéressante ville

b. la ville plus intéressante
c. la ville la plus intéressante
d. la plus intéressante la ville
3. Le travail ne finit jamais, alors je m’endors souvent ________ les vidéos prises pendant
la journée.

a. en visionnant
b. visionnant
c. visionne
d. en visionner
4. Les histoires sur ________ nous enquêtons sont souvent des histoires criminelles.
a. ce que
b. lesquelles
c. dont
d. que
5. _____________ est intéressant, c’est de rencontrer les témoins du drame.

a. Ce que
b. Dont
c. Lequel
d. Ce qui
6. Hier, par exemple, mes collègues et moi, _________ à interroger des jeunes de la
banlieue à propos d’un vol.
a. nous sommes passés l’après midi
b. nous avons descendu l’après-midi
376 Summer 2011

c. nous avons passé l’après-midi

d. nous sommes descendus l’après-midi
7. Nous y sommes allés vers 12h30 parce que quelques heures auparavant, nous
_____________ un mystérieux coup de téléphone.

a. avons reçu
b. recevons
c. recevions
d. avions reçu
8. Est-ce nous avons donné notre numéro de téléphone aux témoins? Bien sûr, ________
a. nous les lui avons donné
b. nous le leur avons donné
c. nous leur l’avons donné
d. nous lui les avons donné

9. Mais il n’y a pas que des crimes _____________ nous parlons dans notre journal.
a. ce qui
b. ce que
c. dont
d. lesquels

10. ____________ nous racontons aussi, ce sont des histoires sur les traditions culturelles
régionales.

a. Lesquelles
b. Ce qui
c. Dont
d. Ce que

11. Par exemple, le mois dernier, je __________ à Lille, une ville dans le nord de la
France.
a. ai monté
b. suis monté
c. ai rentré
d. suis devenu
12. C’est une ville dans __________________ il y a beaucoup de sites historiques aussi.
a. laquelle
b. ce que
c. que
d. dont
13. Je suis aussi allé à La Rochelle, une ville _______________ le port est très célèbre.
a. laquelle
b. dont
c. ce que
d. lequel
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 377

14. C’est ____________________________ que j’ai jamais vu!

a. le plus vieux port
b. le port le plus vieux
c. le plus vieux le port
d. le port plus vieux

15. Si j’avais pu trouver un emploi dans cette ville, ______________________

a. je serais été heureux
b. je serais heureux
c. je suis heureux
d. j’aurais été heureux
16. Est-ce que j’envoie toujours mes commentaires aux rédacteurs en chef quand je
voyage? Non, ________________________ . . .
a. je ne les lui envoie pas toujours
b. je ne les leur envoie pas toujours
c. je ne lui les pas envoie toujours
d. je ne leur les envoie pas toujours
17. J’aimerais ___________________ un compte rendu de ces histoires à tous nos amis!
a. que tu fasses
b. que tu fais
c. que raconter
d. tu raconter
18. Tu sais, les journalistes __________________________
a. font parfois changer les choses
b. fait les choses parfois changer
c. font parfois les choses changent
d. fait parfois les choses change
19. Lorsque je recevrai mon diplôme, je _______________ vivre en France ou dans un
pays francophone.
a. pars
b. partirais
c. partirai
d. partais
20. Mon collègue et ami Philipe, ____________________ un québécois!
a. ce sont
b. ils sont
c. il est
d. c’est
21. Ils sont très sympathiques et ensemble nous ___________________!
a. faisons nos chefs rigolons
b. faisons rigoler nos chefs
c. font nos chefs rigoler
d. font rigolons nos chefs
378 Summer 2011

22. Plus tard je souhaiterais _______________ pour une chaı̂ne de télévision franco-
phone.
a. Marie travaille
b. que travailler
c. travailler
d. Marie travailler
23. Je rentre aux Etats-Unis la semaine prochaine. Dans l’avion, je dormirai sûrement
______________ à toutes mes aventures de journaliste!
a. penser
b. pensant
c. en pensant
d. en penser
24. Mon billet d’avion ____________ par la chaı̂ne de télévision!
a. offre
b. a été offert
c. offrait
d. a offert

Appendix C
Sample Immediate Post-Treatment Test

Activité ] 9 Le gérondif
Parlons maintenant de ce que Bruno fait le matin avant d’aller rejoindre Camille sur le
plateau de Canal 7. Lui aussi fait plusieurs choses en même temps!

Recréez les phrases suivantes avec la forme correcte des verbes entre parenthèses et utilisez
le ge´rondif.

1. (Le matin, Bruno/se brosser les dents/se doucher)

___________________________________________________________________
2. (Ensuite, il/grignoter/promener le chien)
___________________________________________________________________
3. (Il/arriver à Canal 7/crier ß où est Camille????  )
___________________________________________________________________
4. (Le soir, il/se coucher/penser à Camille)
___________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX D
French 201 Post-Study Learning Preference Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions.

1. In your experience, what is the best way to learn grammar in a foreign language
classroom?
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 44, No. 2 379

2. a. When learning grammar in a foreign language classroom, do you prefer having the
rules explained entirely by the teacher first (deductive method) as opposed to guessing
how the grammatical pattern works with the help of some guiding questions from the
teacher (inductive method)? Please explain.
b. Indicate below to what degree you preferred this method (deductive). Please circle
one of the options below.
1. No preference
2. Small preference
3. Moderate preference
4. Large preference
5. Very large preference
3. a. When learning grammar in a foreign language classroom, do you prefer guessing
how the grammatical pattern works with the help of some guiding questions from the
teacher (inductive method) as opposed to having the rules explained entirely by the
teacher first (deductive method)? Please explain.
b. Indicate below to what degree you preferred this method (inductive). Please circle
one of the options below.
1. No preference
2. Small preference
3. Moderate preference
4. Large preference
5. Very large preference
4. In your opinion, what, if any, are the advantages of learning grammatical rules first
before practice? Disadvantages?
5. In your opinion, what, if any, are the advantages of practicing grammatical patterns
first before learning the rules? Disadvantages?

Appendix E
Interview Guide

Prior to the interview, the primary investigator will provide the participants being interviewed
with a brief, unbiased explanation of the two instructional approaches used in this study.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. Your answers to the following
questions will help me better understand your perceptions and experiences in French 201
this semester. This interview will be recorded so that I can later code your answers. Your
identity will remain confidential.
1. What were your overall impressions of the grammar instruction you received in
French 201 this semester?
2. Prior to this course, have you ever taken a university French course?
3. You were taught French grammatical structures using two different approaches, a
guided inductive and a deductive approach. Did you notice any distinguishing
characteristics of the two approaches?
4. Which instructional approach did you prefer for learning French grammar; did you
prefer to be taught the rule before or after practice? Explain why.
380 Summer 2011

5. In your opinion, are there any advantages or disadvantages to learning grammar

deductively, with explicit explanations of the rules? What about using the guided
inductive approach where the instructor asks questions to help you figure out the rule?
6. In which instructional approach do you feel you best learned grammar? Why?
7. Now that you are at the intermediate level, could you tell me what you think about the
teacher talking about grammar versus using PowerPoint presentations and learning
grammar through context?
8. Do you have any comments you would like to add about your learning grammar in
French 201 this semester?
Thank you for your participation in this study.