Eszter Tarsoly and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi University College London

Exploring Inductive and Deductive Methods in Teaching Reading Skills in Finnish and Hungarian Eszter Tarsoly and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi University College London School of Slavonic and East European Studies Sustaining a Global Society: Languages of the Wider World SOAS—School for Oriental and African Studies 29-30 March 2012

Preliminaries • 2008-2010: the draft of two ten-unit graded readers was written, one in Finnish and one in Hungarian, with support from CEELBAS; • the Finnish reader adopts predominantly the inductive, the Hungarian reader the deductive approach; • both readers are intended for ab-initio research-focused learners; • both course books take the task of a reader seriously, no productive skills are taught; But what is the best way to teaching reading?

The aim of our research and this paper is... • to explore two different methodological and pedagogical approaches to the teaching of reading skills in morphologically complex languages • to invite students and practitioners to think about the process of reading, especially L2 reading, and processing information taken from written texts in a new language

Deductive vs. inductive method • In deductive (rule-driven, top-down) teaching the teacher introduces and explains the concept and the rules relating to it. Then the teacher lets students to practice the new concept. GENERAL RULE > EXAMPLES > PRACTICE • In inductive (example-driven, bottom-up) teaching the teacher gives students the data and lets students draw their own conclusions from the data. The students notice how the concept is used and figure out, and verbalise the rule. EXAMPLES > PRACTICE > GENERAL RULE (Stern, 1992)

Previous research by Shaffer (1989): Inductive: 1. the students’ attention is focused on the structure being learned; 2. the students are required to formulate for themselves and then verbalise the underlying pattern; students deduce Deductive: students are given an explanation (Shaffer, 1989:397) and varying amout of time is spent on practice; students induce • Shaffer compared the two approaches from the following perspectives: 1. student ability v. approach; 2. difficulty of structure v. approach; 3. the teachers’ preference for either approach v. students’ performance; • the research was carried out in Spanish and French foreign language classes in secondary education; • the two approaches were tested in teaching various areas of the lexicon and grammar; • The correlation between student ability and approach was not significant, and that the inductive approach can be used with difficult structures as well, thus rehabilitating the inductive method;

Both methods have been shown to work in language learning (e.g. Fotos, 1994; Erlam, 2005). • Deductive method is the more traditional one of the two and generally believed to be more suitable for teaching beginners. It is efficient and clear (Thornbury, 1999:54-55). • Inductive method has been said to be better suited for more advanced learners (Mohamed, 2001), it activates and involves students and prepares them for autonomy (Thornbury, 1999:54-55). • There are individual differences between students: some prefer the deductive method, whereas others benefit from being taught with the inductive method. (Thornbury, 1997; 1999:54-55; Ellis, 2008:882-883).

In our current research we compare the two methods, and explore their advantages from the learners’ perspective; • We are interested in the learners’ perception of the various approaches that are used in the language classroom in the teaching of reading; • Our informants (20 students) are from a different age range from Shaffer’s informants: all in higher education, mostly at Masters level; • Language learning is a creative, cognitive process and learners of our students’ age are adults who are able to understand abstract concepts; • We compare the two approaches with a view to teaching reading and not a particular area of lexicogrammar;

Reading and deductive/inductive method • Reading deductively: • Grammar and difficult vocabulary are explained in advance. • A vocabulary list is provided. • The students are briefed on the content of the text. • The text can be modified, adapted and not authentic. • Reading inductively: • No prior explanation is given with the text. • A vocabulary list is not necessarily provided. • Reference to a grammar book may be provided. • The text is authentic. • Deductive reading – Pre-taught method • Inductive reading – Discovery method

Our questions to students in structured qualitative interviews were therefore: • What are the various approaches that were used in the teaching of reading? • Which were the two fundamental approaches? • What is the most rewarding part of your learning experience when you are taught through either of these approaches? • Do you like receiving vocabulary lists before you start reading a text? • Do you want to be taught the grammar that occurs in a text before reading it? We conducted interviews in six focus groups

Students’ perception of approaches to teaching and learning reading Students were usually unable to distinguish the two methods: • …Reading comprehension and summary… I don’t understand the question. • We have read and listened to a recording of native speakers and read it again. • Each unit was similar... Scary... that there is this difficult text again, and so much grammar to absorb. I noticed no difference between units, methodologically they were all the same.  See, this made a difference to me, I think I can see how units were different, in that they were all geared towards a grammatical point. But some gave it a try: • Generally every unit started with a text that forced us to tease out the grammar. In English teaching at school it is different because we do miriads of routine exercises from simpler to more difficult. This teaching forced us to go down the reading rout. The units model how an academic life would work.

Pro inductive Enhances memorisation • If you do the work by yourself, the hard way, you get a certain conception, there are good chances it is not totally right, but still it kind of helps you to see the logic of a language construction. So, afterwards, when you have explanations, it is kind of more solid knowledge. • I think it helps if you don’t know some of it because you learn by making mistakes and I think, I don’t know what it’s like with other people, but things sort of stick in my head if I have to go and look it up… I just remember it more. • [Remembering] is easier once you figured it out by yourself. But there is a difference between figuring it out and being able to use it actively by yourself. • I remember better with discovery but probably I am biased because I learnt all my languages, German and English in this way, through a text. Starting with the grammar might require students to change their thinking, I don’t know. • Yes, when it clicks inside, and because something clicks inside you remember it. • I think it’s better to look things up by myself because if I’m given then on a list I’m not making as much effort, and it’ll stay in the head.

Promotes active learning • Well, it is a bit hard, I would say, we are all a bit lazy, so of course it is fun to have all the words with the translations but then I suppose we tend to look at just the words and make sense of a list of words, rather than grammatical construction, so, for our own good, it is better not to have anything. Prepares for real life and independent learning • Each unit has this specific grammar core, and vocabulary building, and then there are two methods, in unit one we were given the vocab and we were taught how to analyse vocabulary, and in later units we were working on our own, looking up words, using dictionaries and online sources, to analyse grammar. It is a good way because once we go to COUNTRY we don’t have you or vocab lists anymore, we will be on our own, so, it is a good experience. • I’m thinking if you live in Finland nobody would give you the grammar so you would have to learn to live with the fact that you don’t get grammar in advance and when you read newspapers…or somebody puts a notice on the door you will have to get used to the endings that you don’t understand.

Exciting and interesting • I remember with the past tense for example it was interesting because I could figure it out myself, we were waiting for it for a while and then it came up and we all said, hurray, this is the past tense, and by then we could discover it ourselves. • Personally, I prefer the inductive approach, because I love to read lots of examples first, and then try to figure out the rules, and I enjoy the process of figuring out the rules, it is like finding a treasure, going through different examples  it is like a treasure hunt, hmm, that’s right. Motivating and maintains curiosity • On the other hand, the forms that you don’t really know become conspicuous if you read texts when you don’t know all of it so you learn to recognise things and I guess it sort of triggers you to work out the things that you don’t already know. • If I try to make sense of it by myself, and then look at it, it helps you to try to think within the framework of a language.

Pro deductive Correct interpretation • I don’t agree with receiving the words because I can look them up anyway but I really found it useful the prior explanation of the grammar thing… While reading the text I can guess the meaning of the text but I cannot translate it fully. I know what word is there but I don’t know what is its form and an online dictionary or Google Translate cannot explain that to me. • You can look up the words later and try to learn the meaning but the grammar would help in translating more correctly. Encouraging • If I know grammar, much more grammar maybe I will not stop when I go through the text. • But then the disadvantage [of the inductive method] is that it can be quite discouraging, first when you are on your own working on it, you feel like damn, I suck at this, especially if you are not a language learner. • Learning a language can be quite personally personally challenging to your self-esteem, especially because of the way we learn other things, other subjects, we are given the inductive approach, really, you are told, this is what it is, and now let’s try to apply it to something.

Saves time and effort • One would assume that it’s good for you for while looking up the words you are learning but you get discouraged very easily. There’s just so much to do about this one text and it takes ages. • It’s also about pragmatism. Since we have so much to do usually and we try to squeeze Finnish and try to be time efficient I feel like I spend too much time trying to figure out something that could have been made a bit more easier for me to start memorising the words. • The vocab lists finished too early, and I understand that we were more advanced, but even if not in so much detail but still it would be easier than me just spending three hours translating, instead I could have spent those three hours to learn words. It is time consuming. • In the dictionary there are so many meanings that I am not sure which one to use. • I always get bogged down because I discover other exciting words and I keep looking at them and I want to learn them all and I spend hours doing just that.

Helpful and supportive • You can kind of figure out what words are there… It’s more the grammar construction that we need a push on because you can find words or know words yourself. • Sometimes I try to read newspapers. It’s not too difficult but sometimes I’m lost because I don’t know much grammar… Sometimes I couldn’t find the word in a dictionary because I don’t know the grammar. • There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I found that with the inductive it was very rewarding to do the independent work, and stumble through it quite a lot, and feel kind of on my own and try figure it out, maybe figuring it only half out and then come to class and be told what the other half was, and then feel like, ‘oh, all right, that’s what it meant, I get it now’.

Advantages and disadvantages: an overview

Conclusions and outlook: • Our results pinpoint the advantages of varied instructional techniques in the language classroom. • Mixing methods also reflects how we treat information in real life. • If new language is introduced deductively, plenty of practise is necessary, so that students can deduce their own rules from the examples. • With the inductive approach detailed feedback, reinforcment of the students’ formulation of the rule, and further practice is essential for students to be able to apply what they learnt. • In learning and reading: primacy of a discovery approach; there is no authentic text which presents grammar points in isolation ~ trailersin class: often in simpler texts students get a taste of a more complex language point, which is treated in detail later. This, just like in read life, raises curiosity. • If the aim is language production, the mere discovery of the rule is not enough: plenty of examples and practice (where inductive skills are used) are needed after the rule has been discovered and made explicit. • The interference between the two methods is circular, they are present in learning always in combination and not in isolation from each other; • The two approaches in other disciplines and languages.

References Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erlam, R. ’Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition’. Language Teaching Research 9: 147-172. Fotos, S. (1994) ’Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks’. TESOL Quarterly 28: 328-351. Mohamed, N. (2001) ’Teaching grammar through consciousness raising tasks’. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland. Shaffer, C. (1989) ‘A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Foreign Languages’. The Modern Language Journal 73:396-403. Stern, H.H. (1992) Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thornbury, S. (1997) About Language: Tasks for Teachers of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S. (1999) How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman

Eszter Tarsoly and Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi University College London