Literature on approaches to teaching grammar favours the inductive approach as a better strategy for building students’ grammatical and communicative skills than the deductive approach. This present study investigated whether pupils who were taught grammar through the inductive approach would do better than those taught through the deductive approach. The design chosen for the study is the quasi experimental placed in a mixed method paradigm. Data were collected from a sample of 99 participants (comprising 27 Junior High School English Language teachers and 72 pupils). Data were collected using class tests and observation. Data was analyzed by the use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Findings indicate that those who were taken through inductive teaching showed better skills than those who were taken through the deductive method. Finally, it is recommended that teachers of English Language adopt the inductive teaching approach to teach grammar because it helps students to grasp grammar rules easily.
| Published in | Education Journal (Volume 6, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17 |
| Page(s) | 51-62 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Grammar, Inductive Teaching, Deductive Teaching, Action Research, Acquisition
| [1] | Armah, K. O. O. (2004). An analytical commentary on some telling grammatical errors on some frequency modulation stations in Kumasi, Ghana. Journal of science and technology 24 (2). |
| [2] | Agor, J. T. (2003) Investigating English Language concord problems in the writings of Teacher –Trainees. (Unpublished thesis) University of Ghana. |
| [3] | Asamoah, J. K., & Wiafe, H. (2003) Teaching English in basic schools. Winneba: Institute Educational Development and Extension. |
| [4] | Corbett, J. (2003). English Language Teaching. Australia: Library of Congress. |
| [5] | Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [6] | Dadzie, G., & Bosiwah, L. (2015). Spelling Errors among Junior High School. Journal of Language, Linguistics and Literature Vol. 1, No. 3, 2015, pp. 46-54. |
| [7] | Dawson, C.(2009). Introduction to research: A Practical Guide for Anyone Undertaking Research (4th ed.). United Kingdom: A Division of How To Books Ltd. |
| [8] | Foppoli, J. (2011). Is grammar really important for a second language learner? Retrieved on May 7, 2012 from http://www.eslbase.com/articles/grammar. |
| [9] | Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching Grammar. In M. Celce Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed., 25166). Boston, MA: Thomson/ Heinle |
| [10] | Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice |
| [11] | Griffee, D. T. (2012). An Introduction to Second Language Research Methods Design and Data. USA: Tesl – EJ Publishers. |
| [12] | Johnson, C. S. (2011). School Administration and the Importance of Utilizing Action Research. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (4), 78-84. |
| [13] | Jupp, V. (2006). The Dictionary of Social Research Methods. New Delhi: Sage Publication Inc. |
| [14] | Nunan, D. (1991) Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. London: Prentice Hall International LTD. |
| [15] | Nunan, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. |
| [16] | Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and Dissertation in second Language: Handbook for supervisors. New york: Routlege. |
| [17] | Sackeyfio, N. A (1996). Let’s teach English. Accra: Assemblies of God Literature centre. |
| [18] | Savage, L. K, Bitterlin, G., & Price, D. (2010). Grammar Matters Teaching Grammar in Adult ESL Programs. New York: Cambridge University Press. |
| [19] | Foppoli, J. (2011). Is grammar really important for a second language learner? Retrieved on May 7, 2012 from http://www.eslbase.com/articles/grammar. |
| [20] | Hancook, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing Case study Research, A Practical Guide for Beginner Researchers. New York: Teachers College Press. |
| [21] | Lewin, Kurt. "Action Research and Minority Problems." Journal of Social Issues 2 (1946): 34-46. |
| [22] | Susman Gerald I.(1983) "Action Research: A Sociotechnical Systems Perspective," ed. G. Morgan London: Sage Publications. |
| [23] | Hurley, J. (1996) The foundations of dual language instruction/Judith Lessow-Hurley. 2nd White Plains, N. Y: Longman Publishers. |
| [24] | Bitterlin, G. & Salvage A.(2010) Grammar Matters: Teaching Grammar in Adult ESL Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [25] | Thornbury, S. (1999)How to Teach Grammar 5th Edition. Essex: Pearson Education. |
| [26] | Winter, R. (1989). “Some Principles and Procedures for the Conduct of Action Research.” In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.). New Directions in Action Research, London, Falmer Press. |
| [27] | Brighton, C. M., & Moon, T. R. (2007). Action research step by step: A tool for educators to change their worlds. Gifted Child Today, 30 (2), 23-27. |
| [28] | Thornbury, S. (2000). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman. |
| [29] | Fraenkel, J. R., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Research and Evaluate Research in Education. New York, |
| [30] | Fraenkel, J. R & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, New York, NY: Mc Graw-hill Companies Inc. N. Y: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. |
| [31] | http://www.eslbase.com/teaching/grammar-important-second-language-learner 20/2/15 |
| [32] | http://www.ghanawaec.org/Exams/examiner_BECE.aspx 18/01/2015. |
| [33] | http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0965079930010102. |
| [34] | www.nationaltechcenter.org/index.php/products/at-research 18/77 18/ 06/15. |
| [35] | LA- Nkwantanang Composite Budget. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: www mofep.gov.gh 13/ 03/2015. |
APA Style
Gifty Edna Anani. (2017). Teaching and Learning of Grammar at the Basic Level of Education: Revisiting Inductive Teaching Approach. Education Journal, 6(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17
ACS Style
Gifty Edna Anani. Teaching and Learning of Grammar at the Basic Level of Education: Revisiting Inductive Teaching Approach. Educ. J. 2017, 6(1), 51-62. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17
AMA Style
Gifty Edna Anani. Teaching and Learning of Grammar at the Basic Level of Education: Revisiting Inductive Teaching Approach. Educ J. 2017;6(1):51-62. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17,
author = {Gifty Edna Anani},
title = {Teaching and Learning of Grammar at the Basic Level of Education: Revisiting Inductive Teaching Approach},
journal = {Education Journal},
volume = {6},
number = {1},
pages = {51-62},
doi = {10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.edu.20170601.17},
abstract = {Literature on approaches to teaching grammar favours the inductive approach as a better strategy for building students’ grammatical and communicative skills than the deductive approach. This present study investigated whether pupils who were taught grammar through the inductive approach would do better than those taught through the deductive approach. The design chosen for the study is the quasi experimental placed in a mixed method paradigm. Data were collected from a sample of 99 participants (comprising 27 Junior High School English Language teachers and 72 pupils). Data were collected using class tests and observation. Data was analyzed by the use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Findings indicate that those who were taken through inductive teaching showed better skills than those who were taken through the deductive method. Finally, it is recommended that teachers of English Language adopt the inductive teaching approach to teach grammar because it helps students to grasp grammar rules easily.},
year = {2017}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Teaching and Learning of Grammar at the Basic Level of Education: Revisiting Inductive Teaching Approach AU - Gifty Edna Anani Y1 - 2017/02/22 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17 DO - 10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17 T2 - Education Journal JF - Education Journal JO - Education Journal SP - 51 EP - 62 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2327-2619 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20170601.17 AB - Literature on approaches to teaching grammar favours the inductive approach as a better strategy for building students’ grammatical and communicative skills than the deductive approach. This present study investigated whether pupils who were taught grammar through the inductive approach would do better than those taught through the deductive approach. The design chosen for the study is the quasi experimental placed in a mixed method paradigm. Data were collected from a sample of 99 participants (comprising 27 Junior High School English Language teachers and 72 pupils). Data were collected using class tests and observation. Data was analyzed by the use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Findings indicate that those who were taken through inductive teaching showed better skills than those who were taken through the deductive method. Finally, it is recommended that teachers of English Language adopt the inductive teaching approach to teach grammar because it helps students to grasp grammar rules easily. VL - 6 IS - 1 ER -
Email: