Grammar in Context 2 Sixth Edition Pdf Download

This study aims to find out the effectiveness of inductive and deductive approach on teaching certain grammar structures such as marked and unmarked forms. It is intended to highlight whether there is a significant difference between teaching grammar in context and in isolation for marked and unmarked structures. Unmarked structures refer to the structures that are natural and found in most languages in the world while marked structures are unnatural or not following a regular pattern. The study is based on both quantitative and qualitative research design. 36 students, who were in A1 level in a prep. school of a state university were the participants in the study. The participants were divided into two experimental groups as inductive group and deductive group. The deductive group was taught grammar in isolation and the inductive group was taught in context. Passive form was chosen as marked and future tense was chosen as unmarked structure. After the instructions, both groups took Post tests. Following that, an interview was done with 8 of the participants to get their perceptions about learning grammar in general and the method used in learning process. The results revealed that there was no significant difference between scores of inductive and deductive group. However, it turned out most of the participants in the interview stated they were in favor of learning in context. Key words: Grammar Teaching, Using Context, Grammar in Isolation, Marked and Unmarked Grammar Structures

Figures - uploaded by Tuğçe Karaulutaş

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Tuğçe Karaulutaş

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT OR IN ISOLATION FOR MARKED

AND UNMARKED STRUCTURES

Tuğçe KARAULUTAŞ

MAY 2016

TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT OR IN ISOLATION FOR MARKED

AND UNMARKED STRUCTURES

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

OF

BAHÇEŞEHİR UNIVERSITY

BY

TUĞÇE KARAULUTAŞ

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

MAY 2016

iii

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and

presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare

that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced

all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last Name: Tuğçe KARAULUTAŞ

Signature :

iv

ABSTRACT

TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT OR IN ISOLATION FOR MARKED

AND UNMARKED STRUCTURES

KARAULUTAŞ, TUĞÇE

Master's Thesis, Master's Program in English Language Teaching

Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Kenan Dikilitaş

May 2016, 63 pages

This study aims to find out the effectiveness of inductive and deductive approach on

teaching certain grammar structures such as marked and unmarked forms. It is

intended to highlight whether there is a significant difference between teaching

grammar in context and in isolation for marked and unmarked structures. Unmarked

structures refer to the structures that are natural and found in most languages in the

world while marked structures are unnatural or not following a regular pattern. The

study is based on both quantitative and qualitative research design. 36 students, who

were in A1 level in a prep. school of a state university were the participants in the

study. The participants were divided into two experimental groups as inductive group

and deductive group. The deductive group was taught grammar in isolation and the

inductive group was taught in context. Passive form was chosen as marked and

future tense was chosen as unmarked structure. After the instructions, both groups

took Post tests. Following that, an interview was done with 8 of the participants to

get their perceptions about learning grammar in general and the method used in

learning process. The results revealed that there was no significant difference

between scores of inductive and deductive group. However, it turned out most of the

participants in the interview stated they were in favor of learning in context.

Key words: Grammar Teaching, Using Context, Grammar in Isolation, Marked and

Unmarked Grammar Structures

v

ÖZ

BASİT VE KARMAŞIK DİLBİLGİSİ YAPILARININ BİR METİN İÇERİSİNDE

VE DE CÜMLE BAZINDA ÖĞRETİMİ

KARAULUTAŞ, TUĞÇE

Yüksek Lisans, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Yüksek Lisans Programı

Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Kenan DİKİLİTAŞ

Mayıs, 2016, 63 sayfa

Bu çalışma bazı dilbilgisi yapıların örneğin basit ve karmaşık yapıların öğretiminde

tümden gelim ve tüme varım yöntemlerinin etkililiğini ve bu yöntemler arasında

önemli bir farklılık var mı onu bulmayı amaçlamaktadır. Basit yapılar çoğu dilde

bulunabilen, doğal yapılar, karmaşık yapılar belli bir kurala uymayan ve doğal

olmayan yapılar olarak tanımlanır. Bu çalışma hem nicel hem de nitel bir çalışma

özelliği taşımaktadır. Bir devlet üniversitesinin hazırlık sınıfında A1 seviyesinde

okuyan 36 kişi çalışmaya katılmıştır. Katılımcılar, tüme varım ve tümden gelim

grubu olarak iki deney grubuna bölünmüştür. Tümden gelim grubu bir metin

içerisinde olmadan, cümle bazında, kurallar onlara hazır bir şekilde sunularak

öğretim görmüştür. Tüme varım grubu ise bir metin içerisinde kurallara k endileri

ulaşarak öğretim görmüştür. Edilgen yapı karmaşık yapı olarak, gelecek zaman basit

yapı olarak seçilmilştir. Öğretim süreci sonunda her iki gruba bir test uygulanmıştır.

Bu testlerin devamında 8 katılımcıyla dilbilgisi hakkında ve kullanılan yöntem

hakkında fikirlerini alabilmek için bir mülakat yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar bu iki grup

arasında basit ve karmaşık yapılar arasında önemli bir fark olmadığını göstermiştir.

Ancak, mülakata katılan çoğu katılımcı tüme varım yönteminin öğrenme sürecinde

daha etkili olduğunu belirtmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Dilbilgisi Öğretimi, Metin Kullanma, Cümle Bazında Dilbilgisi

Öğretimi, Basit ve Karmaşık Dilbilgisi Yapıları

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Asst. Prof. Dr. Kenan

Dikilitaş for his guidance, advice, criticism, encouragements and insight throughout

the research.

I would also like to thank my parents, Haluk Karaulutaş and Suzan Karaulutaş , for

their great support throughout my life. Without their understanding, and continuous

support, I could have never been able to aspire for this level of education.

Also, I would like to thank my students who voluntarily got involved in this study.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ETHICAL CONDUCT ……………………………………………………………...iii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iv

ÖZ ................................................................................................................................ v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. x

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………...xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Statement of the problem ................................................................................... 3

1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 4

1.5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 4

1.6 Definitions & Terms ........................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2: Literature Review ....................................................................................... 7

2.1 English Language Teaching in EFL context ...................................................... 7

2.2 Grammar Teaching ........................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Grammar and Grammatical Competence. ................................................. 10

2.2.2 Approaches to Grammar Teaching. ........................................................... 11

2.3 Teaching Grammar in Context or in Isolation .................................................. 20

2.3.1 Introduction. ............................................................................................... 20

2.3.2 Teaching Grammar in Context. ................................................................. 20

2.3.3 Teaching Grammar in Isolation (Sentence-Based Level). ......................... 23

2.4 Teaching Grammar Deductively or Inductively ............................................... 25

2.4.1 Teaching Grammar Inductively. ................................................................ 26

2.4.2 Teaching Grammar Deductively. ............................................................... 28

2.5 Markedness: Marked and unmarked structures ................................................ 30

2.5.1 What is Markedness?. ................................................................................ 30

2.5.2 Universal Grammar & Markedness. .......................................................... 31

2.5.3 Markedness in Language Teaching Context. ............................................. 34

xi

Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................ 37

3.1 Philosophical Paradigm .................................................................................... 37

3.2 Research Design ............................................................................................... 37

3.3 Participants ....................................................................................................... 40

3.4 Procedures ........................................................................................................ 41

3.4.1 Data Collection Instruments. ..................................................................... 41

3.5 Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................. 42

3.5.1 Quantitative Data Collection Procedures. .................................................. 42

3.5.2 Qualitative Data Collection Procedures. .................................................... 43

3.6 Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................. 44

3.6.1 Quantitative Data Analysis Procedures. .................................................... 44

3.6.2 Qualitative Data Analysis Procedures. ...................................................... 44

3.7 Reliability and Validity (for Quantitative Research)........................................ 45

3.8 Trustworthiness (For Qualitative Research) ..................................................... 46

3.9 Limitations ........................................................................................................ 46

3.10 Delimitations .................................................................................................. 46

Chapter 4: Results ...................................................................................................... 48

4.1 Quantitative Results ......................................................................................... 48

4.2 Qualitative Results ........................................................................................... 52

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions ..................................................................... 57

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 57

5.2 Discussion of Findings for Research Questions ............................................... 57

5.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 62

5.3 Recommendations for future research .............................................................. 63

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 65

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 71

A. Materials Used for Unmarked Structure in Deductive Instruction .................... 71

B. Materials Used for Unmarked Structure in Inductive Approach ....................... 74

C. TEST for Unmarked Structure (will) ................................................................. 76

D. Materials To Be Used for Marked Structure in Deductive Instruction. ............ 81

E. Materials To Be Used for Marked Structure (PASSIVE) in Inductive Instruction

................................................................................................................................ 83

F. Test for Marked Structure (PASSIVE) .............................................................. 85

G. Interview Questions ........................................................................................... 89

xii

CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................ 90

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES

Table 1 Inductive and Deductive Dimensions………………………………………13

Table 2 Quasi- Experimental Research Design

(Post-test only) …………………………………………………………………….39

Table 3 The Schedule Used in the Research Process……………………………….39

Table 4 The Schedule for Research Process in Detail……………………………....41

Table 5 Mean Scores of the Inductive Group in Marked

and Unmarked Structures……………...…………………………………………….49

Table 6 Mean Scores of the Deductive Group in Marked

and Unmarked Structures……………………...…………………………………….50

Table 7 Mean Scores of the Deductive and Inductive

Group in Post Test 1 (Unmarked)…………………………………………………...51

Table 8 Mean Scores of the Deductive and Inductive

Group in Post Test 2(marked)……………………………………………………….52

Table 9 General Mean Scores of the Inductive and

Deductive Groups…………………………………………………………………...53

Table 10 Emerging Themes from Students' Perceptions of

Learning Grammar in General………………………………………………………53

Table 11 Students' Perceptions of Deductive Method……………………………...55

Table 12 Students' Perceptions of Inductive Method……………………………….56

Table 13 General Overview of the Results………………………………………57

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

Figure 1 Classification of English as a World Language…………………………...7

Figure 2 Task Based Language Learning……………………………………….…..20

Figure 3 Universal Grammar and Access……………………………………. ……..34

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATONS

ELT English Language Teaching

PPP Presentation, Practice, Production

UG Universal Grammar

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Overview

It cannot be denied the fact that learning English is a must in today's world

because it is lingua franca and people use English in order to communicate all around

the world. This situation brings us to the conclusion that language learning process

should be dealt with a great care by instructors of English. The key point is how

language should be learnt. It can be said that the focus of language teaching process

is especially on grammar. Therefore, lots of theories are stated about how grammar

can be taught.

It is certain that this situation needs special attention in Turkey. In most

universities, the medium of instruction is English, so almost all students study in prep

school before starting their departments. Because of the crucial role of English in

university education, I would like to take the attention to grammar instruction, which

is the primary concern in language learning process in my study.

Grammar teaching can be defined in different words. For example, Ellis (2006)

"Grammar teaching involves any instructional technique that draws learners'

attention to some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps them either to

understand it metalinguistically and/or process it in comprehension and/or production

so that they can internalize it" (p.84).

The thing is grammar teaching has always been a controversial issue in

language learning environment. "According to Ur (1999), in the case of the learners,

grammatical rules enable them to know and apply how such sentence patterns should

be put together. The teaching of grammar should also ultimately center attention on

the way grammatical items or sentence patterns are correctly used" (as cited in

Widodo, 2006, p.122). Therefore, it can be said that grammar teaching should

integrate meaning with use at the same time. The question is how this can be

achieved. It is true that a good variety of teaching methods, starting with grammar

translation method have been conducted in the classrooms for years. However, as

2

the time passes, no method has been proven to be successful in terms of grammar

learning.

Also, rather than to think about which method to be used in the classroom, it is

argued that using context is effective in language learning environment. In other

words, it can be said that teaching grammar in context has been a recent trend in

grammar teaching. Nunan (1998) "In genuine communication beyond the classroom,

grammar and context are often so closely related that appropriate grammatical

choices can only be made with reference to the context and purpose of the

communication" (p.102).

However, some studies state that teaching in isolation or deductively in other

words, have been preferred by instructors or learners. Burgess and Etherington

(2002) "…cumulated evidence from research in grammar learning and SLA suggests

that some conscious attention to form is necessary for language learning to take

place" (p.435).

Apart from these, students' ideas or reactions to the techniques used should

also be taken into consideration. Although teachers are always in favor of doing the

ideal thing in the classroom, students may not agree with their teachers. This results

in mismatches between the assumptions of the students and the teachers in the

language learning process. This is also the case in grammar teaching, too. Burgess

and Etherington (2002) "For example, Brindley's (1984) research within Adult

Migrant Education in Australia found teachers more in favor of communicative

activities, while students preferred more formal, explicit grammar teaching" (p.435).

One more example can be given from my experience. My students at summer

school last year said that they had been learning in isolation better than in context.

They added that when they were given t he rules first, they didn't have any difficulty

applying them, which brings us to the assumption that knowing the grammar rules,

students feel more confident in learning the target language. This underlines the

importance of explicit knowledge of grammar.

3

1.2 Statement of the Problem

It would not be too wrong to say that every instructor of English in EFL

context has doubts in his mind which method to use in the classroom while teaching

grammar or any skill. The instructors of university try to find their ways by deciding

on the approach, to use a context or not and to teach deductively or inductively. The

intent of this study is to examine teaching grammar in context or in isolation for

marked and unmarked structures.

Several studies clearly state the importance of using context in language

teaching process. For example, Mart (2013) "Grammar instruction through context

positively affects learners' competence to use grammatical structures accurately in

language skills. It is always useful for learners to see how language works in

sentences or paragraphs; therefore, teaching grammar in context will give learners

opportunities to see how grammatical structures function in sentences" (p.124).

Additionally, Nunan (1998) states "…unless they provide opportunities for learners

to explore grammatical structures in context, they make the task of developing

procedural skill—being able to use the language for communication—more difficult

than it needs to be, because learners are denied the opportunity of seeing the

systematic relationships that exist between form, meaning and use" (p.102).

Although lots of studies have been carried out about using context in teaching

grammar, few studies have focused on the effectiveness of context in teaching certain

grammar structures. What is more, my students in the last summer school stated that

they preferred being given the rules of the language structures first and then, they

needed further grammar practice. For these reasons, I would like to try to find an

answer whether there is a significant difference between using context for marked

and unmarked structures.

By comparing the results of tests of both experimental groups, in one of them

grammar was thought in isolation, deductively and in the other group it was taught in

context, inductively, involving students as co-researchers, we can better understand

whether switching from using context to explicit grammar instruction is necessary in

certain grammar structures. With this understanding, instructors can plan lessons and

administers can design syllabuses serving for students' needs.

4

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to understand the outcomes of two different

grammar instructions for marked and unmarked structures and compare the test

scores of participants who were taught marked and unmarked grammar structures in

context, inductively with the scores of the participants who were taught them in

isolation, deductively. Also, it is intended to get the perceptions of the participants

about learning grammar in general and the specific method used in the learning

process.

1.4 Research Questions

1. To what extent is teaching grammar inductively effective in unmarked

and marked structures?

2. To what extent is teaching grammar deductively effective in unmarked

and marked structures?

3. Is teaching grammar inductively or deductively more effective in

unmarked structures?

4. Is teaching grammar deductively or inductively more effective in

marked structures?

5. Is teaching grammar deductively or inductively is more effective for

marked and unmarked structures?

6. What are the perceptions of students about learning grammar in

general?

7. How do students feel about learning marked and unmarked structures

inductively?

8. How do students feel about learning marked and unmarked structures

deductively?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Grammar subjects vary in terms of complexity, frequency and significance. In

other words, while some points are easily learned, students may have difficulty

learning certain grammar points, which puts an instructor in a difficult position about

what to do in the teaching process. Especially, learning various grammar rules can be

confusing for students. Petrovitz (1997) highlights the fact that "a lack of

differentiation among these rule types can result in misleading teaching strategies,

5

which cause students to formulate incorrect hypotheses concerning the ways in

which grammatical rules operate" (p. 202). What is more, "Trainee teachers need to

be able to analyse language, to apply different strategies for thinking about language

(analogizing, contrasting, substituting, etc.) in order to be able to plan lessons, to

predict learners difficulties, to answer their questions, and to write and evaluate

materials" (Bolitho et. Al, 2003, p.255).

Therefore, what instructors should do is to keep these features in mind while

teaching grammar structures, which will provide them to adopt different

methodologies in the process of teaching various target grammar forms. Apart from

these features, the other thing that an instructor should care is whether a grammar

structure is marked or unmarked. Although, markedness is not a common term in

ELT, one has to admit that differentiating between marked and unmarked structures,

thus using a more appropriate method in instruction would be more beneficial for

students. To make it clear, unmarked forms are the ones that are common to most

languages and marked forms are not natural or specific to certain languages in the

world. For example, future form "will" is found in all of the languages but passive

form is a marked structure in terms of its being complex and not common. Therefore,

this study is intended to focus on markedness in ELT and tries to find an answer

whether adopting inductive or deductive approach, using context or not makes a

difference between an unmarked and marked form in teaching process.

Additionally, getting perceptions of participants about learning grammar in

general, inductive and deductive approach would provide the instructors to gain more

insight into this dilemma and give some ideas about lesson planning. Identifying

marked and unmarked structures, an instructor would be able to better plan the

instruction. It would be useful to explicitly show the impact of teaching grammar

using context in certain grammar structures.

1.6 Definitions & Terms

Markedness: " Markedness theory deals with the tendencies of linguistic

properties to be found in all languages" (Crystal, 1999, p.212).

Marked Structures: " Semantically/functionally more specific (or more

complex), distributionally more restricted inherently more difficult for humans to

6

process (or learn, or produce). Irregular/abnormal/anomalous as opposed to the

"unmarked" regular forms/patterns, forms standing out as unusual or difficult in

comparison to a more common or regular form" (Fertig, 2014, p.6).

Unmarked structures: " Conceptually and/or formally simpler and therefore

more natural, usually statistically more frequent, usually acquired earlier in the

process of language development" (as cited in Ulatowska and Baker, 1975,

p.153).

Deductive Approach: "Learners are given a rule/generalization by the teacher

or textbook and then allowed to practice various instances of language to which

the rule applies"(Brown, 1994, p.351).

Inductive Approach: "Various language forms are practiced but where the

learners are left to discover or induce rules and generalizations on their own"

(Brown, 1994, p.351).

Explicit Information: Fully and clearly expressed knowledge of grammar.

"Various mnemonics, heuristics and strategies are engaged to induce a

representational system" (DeKeyser, 2008, p.314).

Implicit Information: Implied or suggested, but not clearly stated knowledge

of grammar. "Implicit learning is the unselective and passive aggregation of

information about the co-occurrence of environmental events and features"

(DeKeyser, 2008, p.314)

7

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 English Language Teaching in EFL Context

It is certain that the world is going through the process of globalization.

Because of this process, life patterns tend to change. Formerly, societies used to have

minimal affairs with each other; however, nowadays, people are interacting with

foreign people in different ways for different purposes; business interactions,

cultural, educational exchange and politics. It can be said that English has been the

major means of communication among people.

It cannot be denied the fact that English is a lingua franca, which means "any

lingual medium of communication between people of different mother tongues, for

whom it is a second language" (Samarin, 1987, p. 371). What can be understood

from this is that people are responsible for learning English because of the role of

English being lingua franca. Seidlhofer (2004) "It seems, then, that the growing

awareness of the unique global role of English and its cultural, ecological,

sociopolitical and psychological implications is gradually leading to the realization

that these momentous developments also have linguistic consequences that are

waiting to be noticed and described" (p.224).

Figure 1. Classification of English as a World Language

8

In the figure 1, "the inner circle refers to the traditional bases of English, where

it is the primary language. Included in this circle are the USA, UK, Ireland, Canada,

Australia and New Zealand.

The outer or extended circle involves the earlier phases of the spread of

English in non-native settings, where the language has become part of a country's

chief institutions, and plays an important 'second language' role in a multilingual

setting. Singapore, India, Malawi and over fifty other territories are included in this

circle.

The expanding circle includes those nations which acknowledge the

importance of English as an International Language. They constitute the context in

which English is taught as a 'foreign' language as the most useful vehicle of

international communication" (White, 1997).

Foreign language contexts can be defined as "those in which students do not

have ready-made contexts for communication beyond their classroom. They may be

obtainable through language clubs, special media opportunities, books, or an

occasional tourist but efforts must be made to create such opportunities " (Brown,

1994, p.120). Clearly, teaching English in Turkey is a context of English as a foreign

language.

It could be stated if focused on EFL (English as a foreign language), a foreign

speaker of English is in a difficult position for two reasons: First, "A user of English

as a lingua franca thus has to accommodate to different other speakers from different

linguistic and cultural backgrounds with different levels of competence in each

speech situation. Second, for most Expanding Circle speakers, using English as a

lingua franca remains a rare adventure with changing partners, not part of their daily

lives" (Mollin, 2006, p.45).

The key question is how one can learn or teach English. In general, different

teaching implications are carried out by the teachers all around the world. Also, some

arguments have been going on about what to teach and how to teach. Mollin (2006)

states "Many voices have put forward the argument that if Expanding Circle speakers

use English mainly for lingua franca communication, English teaching should

9

prepare them more for this than for communication with native speakers" (p.46).

Additionally, a good variety of goals and approaches are emphasized. "For example,

McKay identifies the following priorities:

Goals:

• Ensuring intelligibility rather than insisting on correctness

• Helping learners develop interaction strategies that will promote comity (friendly

relations)

• Fostering textual competence (reading and writing skills for learner-selected

purposes)

Approaches:

• Sensitivity in the choice of cultural content in materials

• Reflexivity in pedagogical procedures

• Respect for the local culture of learning" (cited in Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 226).

Apart from these, some others state that it must be the students who should

decide what to learn. For example, Mollin (2006) expresses "There is a broad

consensus that the needs of learners of English should not be presupposed by us

linguists. Rather, we should allow them their own say in the question of which

English they ought to be taught" (p.52).

Similarly, Brown (1994) states classroom hours are sometimes the only hours

of the day when students are exposed to English. Therefore, the language that you

present, model, elicit, and treat takes on great importance. Also, he highlights the

importance of intrinsic motivation and suggests some ideas to be used in the

classroom:

 Use class time for optimal authentic language input and interaction.

 Don't waste class time on work that can be done as homework.

 Provide regular motivation-stimulating activities.

10

 Help them to see genuine uses for English in their own lives.

 Play down the role of tests and emphasize more intrinsic factors.

 Provide plenty of extra-class learning opportunities, such as assigning an

English speaking movie, having them listen to an English speaking TV or

radio program, getting an English speaking conversation partner, doing

outside reading (news, magazines, books), writing a journal or diary in

English.

 Encourage the use of learning strategies outside class.

 Form a language club and schedule regular activities (pp.121-122).

2.2 Grammar Teaching

2.2.1 Grammar and grammatical competence. Before identifying the term

"grammar teaching", one needs to define what grammar is. Different definitions are

suggested for it. For example, The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

defines grammar as 'the rules by which words change their forms and are combined

into sentences.' Radford (1988) "For Chomsky, a grammar is a model (systematic

description) of those linguistic abilities of native speakers of a language which

enable them to speak and understand their language fluently (p.3). Harmer (1989)

"Grammar, then, is the way in which words change themselves and group together to

make sentences. The grammar of a language is what happens to words when they

become plural or negative, or what word order is used when make questions or join

two clauses to make one sentence" (p.1). This situation brings us to the fact that the

knowledge of grammar is crucial in terms of using the language accurately. Some

arguments give priority to grammatical competence while others support

grammatical competence only is not enough for using the language. For example,

Zhang (2009) "It is exact that putting grammar in the foreground in second

language teaching, because language knowledge of grammar and vocabulary is the

base of English language. Grammatical competence is one of communicative

competence. Communicative competence involves knowing how to use the grammar

and vocabulary of the language to achieve communicative goals, and knowing how

to do this in a socially appropriate way. Communicative goals are the goals of

learners' studying English language. So grammar teaching is necessary to achieve

the goals" (p.184).

11

Also, Brown (1994) states "Grammatical competence is necessary for

communication to take place, but not sufficient to account for all production and

reception in language. Grammar gives us the form or the structures of language

themselves, but those forms are literally meaningless without a second dimension,

that of meaning/semantics, and a third dimension, pragmatics" (p.348).

Apart from these, the place of grammar has always changed in language

education over the years. Some methods use grammar as base, give more importance

to teaching it and underline explicit information of it; however others focusing on

language skills highlight implicit information.

2.2.2 Approaches to grammar teaching. In this section, what an approach is

defined, the change of approaches from past to now is explained in language

teaching process.

2.2.2.1 Definitions. It could be said that grammar teaching has always been a

controversial issue in language teaching. Attitudes towards grammar teaching have

been changing all the time. Different methodologies become popular in different

times. Firstly, it is stressed what an approach, a method and methodology refers to.

Then a historical review is expressed.

Anthony (1963) states "An approach, according to is a set of assumptions

dealing with the nature of language, learning and teaching. Method is an overall plan

for systematic presentation of language based upon a selected approach. Techniques

are the specific activities manifested in the classroom that are consistent with a

method and therefore in harmony with an approach as well" (cited in Brown, 1994,

p.48).

In another explanation, Richards and Rodgers (1982) "A method is an umbrella

term for the specification and interrelation of theory and practice. An approach

defines assumptions, beliefs and theories about the nature of language and language

learning" (cited in Brown, 1994, p. 48).

Brown (1994) defines "methodology as the study of pedagogical practices in

general, an approach as theoretical positions and beliefs about the nature of language,

the nature of language learning, and the applicability of both to pedagogical settings,

12

a method as generalized set of classroom specifications for accomplishing linguistic

objectives. Methods tend to be primarily concerned with teacher and student roles

and behaviors and secondarily with such features as linguistic and subject-matter

objectives, sequencing and materials" (p.51).

2.2.2.2 Grammar as an implicit and explicit focus. It is acknowledged that a

number of descriptions are stated about what implicit and explicit learning is. To

illustrate, "For Arthur Reber, the pioneer of implicit learning research the central

issue was lack of consciousness of the structure being learned. He defined implicit

learning as 'a primitive process of apprehending structure by attending to frequency

cues' as opposed to 'a more explicit process whereby various mnemonics, heuristics,

and strategies are engaged to induce a representational system (1976, p.93). Hayes

and Broadbent are slightly more precise in stating that implicit learning is 'the

unselective and passive aggregation of information about the co-occurrence of

environmental events and features' (1988, p. 251)" (as cited in DeKeyser, 2008, p.

314).

Tütüniş (2012) states " Explicit grammar instruction supplies the declarative

knowledge of grammar whereas implicit grammar instruction supplies procedural

knowledge of grammar. Explicit grammar instruction creates awareness and leads to

conscious learning and noticing (Schimidt‟s noticing hypothesis, 1990), implicit

grammar instruction on the other hand converts input into intake similar to L1

acquisition" (p.122).

Additionally, DeKeyser (2008) highlights the differences between the terms

inductive, deductive, implicit and explicit. "Inductive learning (going from particular

to the general, from examples to rules) and implicit learning (learning without

awareness are two orthogonal concepts. Via traditional teaching, learning is both

deductive and explicit. When students are encouraged to find rules for themselves by

studying examples in a text, learning is inductive and explicit. When children acquire

linguistic competence of their native language without thinking about its structure,

their learning is inductive and implicit" (p.314).

Table 1

13

The inductive/deductive and explicit/implicit dimensions

Also, Scott (1990) agrees the fact that one has to tell apart between implicit and

explicit focuses. She says "While there are many different teaching strategies that are

currently being used in high school and college foreign language classrooms, there

are essentially two basic approaches, namely explicit and implicit. An explicit

approach to teaching grammar insists upon the value of deliberate study of a

grammar rule, either by deductive analysis or inductive analogy in order to organize

linguistic elements efficiently and accurately. An implicit approach by contrast is one

which suggests that students should be exposed to grammatical structures in a

meaningful and comprehensible context in order that they may acquire as naturally

as possible, the grammar of the target language" (p.779).

2.2.2.3 Grammar translation method, direct method, audiolingualism and

PPP. It can be stated that language teaching process dates back to Grammar

Translation Method "GTM". Harmer (2007) states "Typically, in GTM, students

were given explanations of individual points of grammar, and then they were given

sentences which exemplified these points. These sentences had to be translated from

the target language (L2) back to the students' first language (L1) and vice versa. In

the first place, language was treated at the level of the sentence only, with little

study, certainly at the early stages, of longer texts. Secondly, there was little if any

consideration of the spoken language. And thirdly, accuracy was considered to be a

necessity (p.63). Therefore, it has an explicit focus on grammar.

Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979) listed major characteristics of Grammar

Translation:

 Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target

language.

 Long elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given.

14

 Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often

focuses on the form and inflection of words.

 Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in

grammatical analysis (cited in Brown, 1994, p.53).

Freeman (1986) states the techniques used in GTM as follows:

 Deductive Application of Rule: Grammar rules are presented with examples.

Once students understand a rule, they are asked to apply it to some different

examples.

 Fill-in -the-blanks: Students are given a series of sentences with words

missing.

 Memorization: Students are required to memorize grammatical rules and

grammatical paradigms such as verb conjugations (p.14).

After the oppositions to the GTM by educators, the direct method became

popular at the end of the nineteenth century. It is similar to GTM in terms of "the

sentence being the main object of interest, and the importance of accuracy" (Harmer,

2007, p.63). Richards and Rodgers (1986) summarize the principles:

 Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.

 Grammar was taught inductively.

 Correct grammar was emphasized.

 New teaching points were taught through modeling and practice (cited in

Brown, 1994, p.55).

Freeman (1986) states the techniques used in Direct Method as follows

 Reading Aloud: Students take turns reading sections of a passage, at the end

of each student's turn; the teacher uses gestures, pictures or other means to

make the meaning clear.

 Question and Answer Exercise: Students are asked questions and answer in

full sentences so that they practice with new words and grammatical

structure.

15

 Self-correct: The teacher has the students self-correct by asking them to make

a choice between what they said and an alternate answer he supplied.

 Fill-in -the-blank Exercise: All the items are in the target language; no explicit

grammar rule would be applied (pp.26-27).

In 1960's , a new method called Audio-Lingual Method became fashionable in

foreign language teaching process. In Audiolingualism, "using the stimulus-

response-reinforcement model, it attempted, through a continuous process of such

positive reinforcement, to engender good habits in language learners.

Audiolingualism relied heavily on drills to form these habits; substitution was built

into these drills so that in small steps, the student was constantly learning. Dialog

memorization and different types of drills are used. For example:

Teacher: There is a cup on the table … repeat.

Students: There is a cup on the table.

Teacher: Spoon.

Students: There is a spoon on the table.

Teacher: Book

Students: There is a book on the table.

Teacher: On the chair.

Students: There is a cup on the chair.

(Harmer, 2007, p. 64).

The characteristics can be summarized:

 New material is presented in dialog form

 There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive

analogy rather than deductive explanation.

 There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids.

 There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterances.

(Brown, 1994, p.57).

16

PPP is referred to as Presentation-Practice and Production. It is thought that

this method is a variation of Audio- Lingualism. Harmer (2003) states "In this

procedure, the teacher introduces a situation which contextualizes the language to be

taught. The language, too is then presented. The students now practice the language

using accurate reproduction techniques such as choral repetition, individual

repetition. Later the students, using the new language, make sentences of their own,

and this is referred to as production" (p.80 ). It can be said that PPP is very similar to

Audio Lingual Method because of the drills, however the structures are

contextualized by the situation, which makes it more meaningful.

The PPP has been criticized harshly for different reasons. Lewis (1993)

suggested that PPP was inadequate because it reflected neither the nature of language

nor the nature of learning (cited in Harmer, 2003, p.82). Also, Scrivener stated "PPP

only describes one kind of lesson; it is inadequate as a general proposal concerning

approaches to language in the classroom. It entirely fails to describe the many ways

in which teachers can work when, for example, using course books or when adopting

a task based approach (cited in Harmer, 2003, p.82).

2.2.2.4 Community language learning, suggestopedia, total physical

response, silent way. In 1970s, language teaching process began to be seen as not

only habit formation but also as lowering psychological barriers to learning.

Therefore, in Community Language Learning (CLL), "a 'knower' stands outside a

circle of students and helps the students say what they want to say by translating,

suggesting or amending the students' utterances. Students, with the help of the

teacher, reflect on how they felt about the activities" (Harmer, 2007, p.68). Particular

grammar points are worked inductively without explicit grammar instruction.

CLL heavily depended on "Carl Rogers' view of education in which learners in

a classroom are regarded as a " group " rather than a "class" – a group in need of

certain therapy and counseling" (Brown, 1994, p.59). Students are considered as

"whole persons" "Whole-person learning means that teachers consider not only their

students' feelings and intellect but also have some understanding of the relationship

among students' physical reactions, their instinctive protective reactions and their

17

desire to learn" (Freeman, 1989, p.89). Tape recordings, transcriptions, reflection on

experience are important elements in lessons.

Suggestopedia was developed by Georgi Lozanov. Lozanov had the

assumption that "students fear that we will be unable to perform, we will fail… In

order to better use of our mental reserves, the limitations we think we have need to

be 'desuggested'. Suggestopedia, the application of the study of suggestion to

pedagogy, has been developed to help students eliminate the feeling that they cannot

be successful and, thus, to help them overcome the barriers to learning" (Freeman,

1989, p.72).

In terms of grammar, "Grammar is dealt with explicitly but minimally. In fact,

it is believed that students will learn best if their conscious attention is focused, not

on the language forms, but on using the language" (Freeman, 1989, p.83).

What is different is that in this method, "students take on different names and

exist in a child –parent relationship with the teacher. Traumatic topics are avoided,

and at one stage of a three-part procedure, the teacher reads a previously- studied

dialogue to the accompaniment of music" (Harmer, 2007, p.68). Peripheral learning

is a characteristic of this lesson. It is supported that students will absorb the grammar

structures without difficulty by means of the posters on the walls of classrooms

which contain grammatical information about the target language.

Total Physical Response method is based on natural approach. The supporters

of this approach agree on the idea that foreign language teaching should be as in first

language learning, which means students being exposed to target language as

possible. Freeman (1989) states "In the Total Physical Response Method, students

listen and respond to the spoken target language commands of their teacher" (p.110).

"If focused on grammar especially, grammatical structures and vocabulary are

emphasized over other language areas. These are embedded within imperatives. The

imperatives are single words and multi-word chunks" (Freeman, 1989, p.117).

Silent Way is a method that supports "discovery learning" should be the

primary concern in language teaching process. Richards and Rodgers (1986)

summarize the theory of learning behind the Silent Way:

18

 Learning is facilitated if the learner discovers or creates rather than

remembers and repeats what is to be learned.

 Learning is facilitated by accompanying physical objects.

 Learning is facilitated by problem solving involving the material to be

learned (cited in Brown, 1994, p.62).

The interesting idea about the Silent Way is that "because of the teacher's

silent non-involvement, it is up to the students – under the controlling but indirect

influence of the teacher – to solve problems and learn the language" (Harmer, 2007,

p.68).

When it is looked what areas of language are emphasized, "since the sounds

are basic to any language, pronunciation worked on from the beginning. There is also

focus on the structures of the language, although explicit grammar rules may never

be supplied" (Freeman, 1989, p.64).

2.2.2.5 Communicative language teaching and task-based language learning.

It could be said that communicative approach meets the needs of learners in terms of

enabling them to get ready for real life situations which are necessary for being able

to communicate. The significant thing about Communicative Approach can be stated

as follows: "Adherents of the Communicative Approach acknowledge that structures

and vocabulary are important. However, they feel that preparation for

communication will be inadequate if only these are taught. Students may know the

rules of language usage, but will be unable to use the language" (Freeman, 1989, p.

123). This view is right in some points. Although some students have perfect

knowledge of the target language, they are still unable to communicate. Freeman

(1989) also adds "Since communication is a process, it is insufficient for students to

simply have knowledge of target language forms, meanings and functions. Students

must be able to apply this knowledge in negotiating meaning. It is through the

interaction between speaker and listener (or reader and writer) that meaning becomes

clear" (p.123).

Nunan (1991) offers five features to characterize Communicative Language

Teaching, (CLT):

19

 An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target

language.

 The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.

 The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on language but

also on the learning process itself.

 An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important

contributing elements to classroom learning.

 An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation

outside the classroom (cited in Brown, 1994, p.78).

"A major strand of CLT centers around the essential belief that if students are

involved in meaning-focused communicative tasks, then 'language learning will

take care of itself' and that plentiful exposure to language in use and plenty of

opportunities to use it are vitally important for a student's development of

knowledge and skill" (Harmer, 2007, p.69).

The key points of CLT can be stated as follows:

 Meaning is paramount

 Contextualization is a basic premise

 Fluency and acceptable language is the primary goal; accuracy is judged

not in the abstract but in context

 The teacher cannot know exactly what language the students will use

(Brown, 1994, p.83).

In Task Based Learning, a task can be defined as "any structured language

learning endeavor which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a specified

working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task"

(Brown, 1994, p.83).

"Task based learning ma kes the performance of meaningful tasks central to the

learning process. If students are focused on the completion of a task, they are just as

likely to learn language as they are if they are focusing on language forms. Instead of

a language structure or function to be learnt, students are presented with a task they

have to perform or a problem they have to solve" (Harmer, 2007, p.71).

20

The flow of a lesson can be shown as in the figure below:

Pre-Task Task Cycle Language Focus

Introduction to topic and task Task Planning Report Analysis Practice

Figure 2. Task Based Language Learning

"In the Pre-task stage, the teacher explores the topic with the class and may highlight

useful words and phrases. During the Task cycle stage, the students perform the task

in pairs or small groups while the teacher monitors from a distance. In the Language

Focus stage, the students examine and discuss specific features of any listening or

reading text which they have looked at for the task and/or the teacher may conduct

some form of practice of specific language features which the task has provoked"

(Harmer, 2007, p.72).

2.3 Teaching Grammar in Context or in Isolation

2.3.1 Introduction. Apart from which method should be used in the classroom,

an instructor should also need to consider whether to use context in what place and

how. One cannot emphasize a general agreement that using context is more effective

than focusing on sentence-based level instruction. While a great number of people

are in favor of context in language teaching process, the number of people who

supports sentence-based level instruction should be engaged in the classroom cannot

be underestimated.

2.3.2 Teaching Grammar in Context. It is often agreed that expressions in a

language cannot be thought without its context for different reasons. "Context takes

into account such things as; who the speaker/writer is, who the audience is, where the

communication takes place, what communication takes place before and after a

sentence in question, implied vs. literal meanings, styles and registers and alternative

forms among which a producer can choose" (Brown, 1994, p.348).

As Halliday and Hasan (1989) stated "the notions of text and context are

inseparable: text is language operative in a context of situation and contexts are

ultimately construed by the range of texts produced within a community" (cited in

Kramsch, 1993, p.10). Context deserves the attention in language learning because

21

they cannot be separated. Saville-Troike (1989) states "…this context includes

understanding of culturally defined aspects of a communicative event, such as role

relationships and norms of interpretations, of holistic scripts for the negotiation of

meanings, as well as observable aspects of the setting" (as cited in Kramsch, 1993,

p.11).

Additionally, context plays an important role in interpreting the language.

Thornbury (2002) stresses "Language is context-sensitive. This means that, in the

absence of context, it is very difficult to recover the intended meaning of a single

word or phrase. The following sentences are almost meaningless out of context: 1.

The ones that don't, seem to think so. 2. It's a drink. Here are the contexts that

sentences are taken from:

1. Is it important that a gin comes from London? The ones that don't, seem to

think so. Because, though they all have "London Dry Gin" on their labels, only

one premium gin is actually distilled in London, the city of great gin making.

2. "Are you going to that Hodders party?"

I said that I didn't know anything about it.

"It is for that boring woman who writes picture books about Nash terraces.

"Every twit in London will be there."

"So are you going?"

"It's a drink," Musprat said, meaning yes.

(from Theroux, P. Lady Max, Granta 40)

As decontextualized words and decontextualized sentences lose their meaning,

so too do decontextualized texts. That is, texts divorced from their context may

become difficult to interpret" (p.70). It can be expressed that one can clearly see the

importance of context in these expressions as the meaning changes according to the

words surrounding.

22

The thing is lots of course books consisting of decontextualized sentences

practices do exist although it is repeatedly highlighted the significance of context.

Most of these books do not separate these as grammatical rules which should be

taught in context but they have tended to follow the tradition of giving rules and

practicing.

Some researchers emphasize that using context is more important in teaching

certain grammar structures. Petrovitz (1997) "First, contextualization is more

important for some grammatical items than for others; discourse factors seem much

more crucial for tense usage, for example, than for irregular plurals" (p. 201).

According to Perlovitz certain grammar structures ought to be taught in context, for

example tense usage. "In the common verb tense exercise, the student is provided

with an uninflected verb and is asked to supply the correct form in a given sentence.

The following are typical examples:

a) The Chancellor constantly (receive) suggestions for simplifying the

tax system. These on occasion (be) quite sensible. (Graver, 1986,

p.77)

b) John and I went for a walk. I had difficulty keeping up with him

because he (walk) so fast (Murphy, 1994, p.33).

If students are repeatedly exposed to models of this type, they may develop the

impression that the use of a particular verb tense is dependent not upon the intended

meaning of the speaker but rather upon a purely formal co-occurrence relationship

between certain verb tenses and certain expressions or grammatical forms. Were this

true, learning tense usage could be reduced to memorizing lists of expressions, each

with its corresponding tense or mechanically applying tense-harmony rules. … While

it is possible for students to do well in exercises, this does not indicate that they have

mastered tense usage. Such activities can further handicap students in that they come

to believe that the imagined co-occurrence restrictions are uniquely defined" (pp.

202, 203).

If focused on teaching passives, apart from supplying correct form of the verbs

exercise, transformation exercises are preferable in teaching passives. However, it is

not an ideal thing to do in the classroom. "The problem in this case is that the passive

23

is represented merely as a structural variant of the active with no independent

meaning or use. The example below is typical of such exercises:

a. The chambermaid hasn't cleaned my room (Jones, 1985, p.59).

b. My room hasn't been cleaned by the chambermaid (Perlovitz, 1997, p. 204).

Lots of others who also agree with the fact that using context is a must in

language learning process can be stated. For example, Nunan (1998) states "If

learners are not given opportunities to explore grammar in context, it will be difficult

for them to see how and why alternative forms exist to express different

communicative meanings; for example, getting learners to read a set of sentences in

the active voice, and then transform these into passives following a model, is a

standard way of introducing the passive voice. However, it needs to be supplemented

by tasks which give learners opportunities to explore when it is communicatively

appropriate to use the passive rather than the active voice" (p p.102-103).

Overall, it would not be too wrong to say that a great number of people are in

favor of using context no matter what is taught in target language. To illustrate,

Nunan (1998) specially written texts and dialogues, drills, and deductive

presentations by the teacher, have no place in the grammar class. What we need is an

appropriate balance between exercises that help learners come to grips with

grammatical forms, and tasks for exploring the use of those forms to communicate

effectively (pp.108-109).

2.3.3 Teaching grammar in isolation (Sentence-based level). Teaching in

isolation or at sentence based level involve the process of giving the rules of target

grammar forms, formulating them, giving example sentences only, making

translation, mechanical practices in the classroom. Although it may sound bad, it is

still used and favored by a good number of teachers and researchers.

To give an example, Smith (2013) "Teaching grammar in isolation may be an

old idea, but many teachers still submit that it is the most effective way. Perhaps

these teachers are older and this was how they learned grammar; or maybe these

teachers have tried just about everything, and teaching using isolated units is their

last attempt. Michael Thompson (2002) is a major proponent of teaching grammar in

24

isolation. His research discussed how math and Latin are not taught with a focus on

real-life use, and like those subjects, grammar has 'a complicated system of

interlocking subsystems' (p. 63) and large amounts of time should be given to its

instruction. He continued with, 'prescriptive grammar instruction is correct' (p. 65).

It is his contention that students will be expected to observe language standards

within the professional world, and teachers are doing students a disservice not

preparing them to meet these standards" (p.16).

Other researchers have also added that "form-focused instruction is needed to

improve learners' accuracy" (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, p. 66). Nunan (2005) stated that

teachers must explain to kids why the rules are important (mainly to focus on their

use as tools), but teachers still need to teach the rules. She continued that native

speakers of English learn a lot through generalizations of the rules; unfortunately,

English has many exceptions to the rules, so students cannot be expected to learn the

exceptions on their own. She noted, "Grammar rules are fixed and must be learned

because patterns of speech reflect education, class, even morality" (p. 72).

Sentence-based level grammar instruction is supported by lots of teachers and

researchers, which is because of the assumption that seeing the structure would ease

the process of learning; however, some other people agree upon the crucial role of

context. For instance, Thornbury (2002) "Although language has traditionally been

analyzed and taught at the level of sentence, real language use seldom consists of

sentences in isolation, but of groups of sentences. …The problem is that, just as it is

easier to examine a fish out of water than in its natural habitat, so in order to look at

grammar it is often easier to use examples taken out of context. But, taking words,

sentences and texts out of context threatens their intelligibility. Taking individual

grammar structures out of context is equally perilous. You might think you know

what He's playing tennis means, which is he is doing it now, as I speak. But only one

of the following examples is consistent with that interpretation:

"Where is Tony?" "He is playing tennis."

He never wears his glasses when he is playing tennis.

25

Tomorrow morning he'll be in the office but in the afternoon he's playing

tennis.

He's playing tennis a lot these days. Do you think he's lost his job?

There's this friend of mine, Tony. He's playing tennis one day. Suddenly he

gets this shooting pain in his chest…

What's more, the decontextualizing of grammar often results in practice

exercises that are of doubtful value. For example,

1. Choose the correct form of the verb:

a. Do you work/ Are you working every weekend?

b. "Cigarette?" "No thanks, I am not smoking/I don't smoke."

c. What do you eat/are you eating? Cake.

2. Which of these sentences are grammatically correct?

a. I am planning to go to India for my holidays.

b. "The phone's ringing!" "I am going to get it."

c. They will have a party next week.

d. I am tired. I think I am going to bed.

The point here is that none of these examples has a clear "right answer" and a

clear wrong one. They are all well-formed sentences (that is, they are grammatically

accurate), even though we recognize some choices as being more likely than others.

But it is possible to imagine a context where, for example "Cigarette? "No, thanks, I

am not smoking." is perfectly appropriate. Questions of correctness are often

unresolvable in the absence of context, and a lot of classroom time can be wasted

arguing the toss over disembodied sentences." (pp.71-72).

2.4 Teaching Grammar Deductively or Inductively

Whether to use inductive or deductive approach is another problematic issue

for language teachers. Some researchers have revealed that inductive approach is

26

more ideal, others state vice versa. "Herron and Tomosello (1992) found a clear

advantage for inductive instruction; Robinson (1996) found that a deductive

approach was more effective, while Rosa and O'Neill (1999) found no significant

difference in effectiveness. Erlam's (2003) own study revealed a significant

advantage for the group receiving deductive instruction" (as cited in Ellis, 2006, p p .

97-98).

Actually, it can be said that both inductive and deductive approaches have their

own flaws. For example; "Krashen, Dulay and Burt argued that since language is

acquired naturally by means of innate cognitive process, teachers need only supply

comprehensible input without explicitly stating or even focusing on rules. Others,

such as Ausubel and Carrol maintained that since adults are endowed with a

cognitive network enabling them to understand abstract concepts, teachers should

capitalize on this asset and speed up the language acquisition process by giving the

learners explicit rules in a deductive framework" (Shaffer, 1989, p.1).

2.4.1 Teaching grammar inductively. Inductive learning can be described as

rule-discovery. In an inductive approach, Thornbury (2002) "without having met the

rule, the learner studies examples and from these examples derives an understanding

of the rule" (p.49). The general assumption behind this theory is that if a learner is

exposed to a certain amount of input, consisting of contexts and examples, s/he will

be able to grasp the language structures.

Erlam (2003) Induction is a process that moves from the specific to the general.

The language learner is first exposed to instances of language use, from which will

emerge patterns and generalizations. In inductive instruction, learners directly attend

to particular forms and try to arrive at metalinguistic generalizations on their own

(p.243).

Johnson & Johnson (1999) states "Those favoring the inductive approach while

agreeing that the 'rules' of foreign languages must be acquired, have argued that

such rules may be 'induced' by learners if language input is organized appropriately.

This position has often been backed up by the observations that people acquire their

mother tongue 'naturally', without explicitly learning the 'rules' and that a similar

process can apply in the case of the foreign learner" (pp.146-147).

27

It can be said that discovering language is crucial in the learning process.

Harmer (2003) states "The things we discover for ourselves are absorbed more

effectively than things we are taught" (p.75). For this reason, it can be expressed that

an inductive approach is preferable in language learning environment.

Advantages and disadvantages can be stated as follows:

Brown (1994) states:

a) it is more in keeping with natural language acquisition.

b) It conforms more easily to the concept of interlanguage development in

which learners progress through possible stages of rule acquisition.

c) It allows students to get a communicative "feel" for some aspect of language

before getting possibly overwhelmed by grammatical explanations

d) It builds more intrinsic motivation by allowing students to discover rules

rather than being told them (p.351).

Thornbury (2002) lists:

e) Rules learners discover for themselves are more likely to fit their existing

mental structures than rules they have been presented with. This in turn will

make the rules more meaningful, memorable and serviceable.

f) The mental effort involved ensures a greater degree of cognitive depth which

again ensures greater memorability.

g) Students are more actively involved in the learning process, rather than being

simply passive recipients: they are therefore likely to be more attentive and

more motivated.

h) It is an approach which favors pattern-recognition and problem solving

abilities which suggests that it is particularly suitable for learners who like

this kind of challenge.

i) If the problem solving is done collaboratively, and in the target language,

learners get the opportunity for extra language practice.

j) Working things out for themselves prepares students for greater self-reliance

and is therefore conducive to learner autonomy (p.54).

As for disadvantages:

28

a) The time and energy spent in working out rules may mislead students into

believing that rules are the objective of language learning, rather than a

means.

b) The time taken to work out a rule may be at the expense of time spent in

putting the rule to some sort of productive practice.

c) Students may hypothesize the wrong rule, or their version of the rule may be

either too broad or too narrow in its application: this is especially a danger

where there is no overt testing of their hypotheses, either through practice

examples, or by eliciting an explicit statement of the rule.

d) It can place heavy demands on teachers in planning a lesson. They need to

select and organize the data carefully so as to guide learners to an accurate

formulation of the rule, which also ensuring the data is intelligible.

e) However carefully organized the data is, many language areas such as aspect

and modality resist easy rule formation.

f) An inductive approach frustrates students who, by dint of their personal

learning style or their past learning experience (or both) would prefer simply

to be told the rule (Thornbury, 2002, pp. 54-55).

Nunan (1998) "Classrooms where the principle of active exploration has been

activated will be characterized by an inductive approach to learning in which learners

are given access to data and provided with structured opportunities to work out rules,

principles, and applications for themselves. The idea here is that information will be

more deeply processed and stored if learners are given an opportunity to work things

out for themselves, rather than simply being given the principle or rule" (p.107).

2.4.2 Teaching grammar deductively. Deductive teaching can be described

differently. To give an example, Decoo (1996) acknowledges "Deduction is

understood as the process that goes from the general to the specific, from consciously

formulated rules to the application in language use" (p. 96). Therefore, rules,

patterns, principles in the target language are presented first, and then examples are

given. Rule-driven teaching is another term that refers to deductive approach. Rule

explanation, doing worksheet, translation is some of the activities to be carried out in

a typical lesson of deductive approach.

29

Also, Erlam (2003) defines "Deduction is defined as a process that moves from

the general to the specific. In language learning, a general rule is applied to particular

instances of language use. Deductive instruction involves rule explanation" (p. 242).

Similarly, Johnson & Johnson (1999) expresses the importance of explicit

knowledge and states "The deductive approach holds it essential that learners should

possess an explicit knowledge of grammar, such that they can consciously learn the

rules of these (p.146). They also highlight "It is also felt useful that they should be

able to compare and contrast the system of the foreign language with that of the

mother tongue. Moreover, accuracy and valued speech are in contention, since while

the supporters of the deductive approach have probably never denied that people may

pick up foreign languages, they have been concerned that they should speak them

'well' and 'correctly'"(p.146).

Thornburry (2002) states "A deductive approach starts with the presentation of

a rule and is followed by examples in which the rule is applied" (p.29).

Ellis (2006) makes it clear "In deductive teaching, a grammatical structure is

presented initially and then practised in one or another; this is the first P in the

present-practise-produce sequence" (p.97).

It is stated that deductive teaching has both advantages and disadvantages. The

disadvantages can be listed below: Thornbury (2002) lists

a. Starting the lesson with a grammar presentation may be off-putting for some

students.

b. Grammar explanation encourages a teacher-fronted, transmission-style

classroom.

c. Explanation is seldom as memorable as other forms of presentation, such as

demonstration.

d. Such an approach encourages the belief that learning a language is simply a

case of knowing the rules.

The advantages follow:

30

a. It gets straight to the point, and can therefore be time saving.

b. It respects the intelligence and maturity of many – especially adult –

students, acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in language acquisition.

c. It confirms many students' expectations about classroom learning,

particulary for those learners who have an analytical learning style.

d. It allows the teacher to deal with language points as they come up, rather

than having to anticipate them and prepare for them in advance (p.30).

2.5 Markedness: Marked and Unmarked Structures

2.5.1 What is markedness?. Markedness is defined in different ways. For

example, Bussman (1998) states "The concept of markedness is concerned with the

distinction between what is neutral, natural or expected (=unmarked) and what

departs from the neutral (=marked). In grammar terms, the concept of markedness is

applied within recent generative transformational grammar (=core grammar) within

natural generative grammar" (pp. 294-295).

Also, Crystal (1999) expresses " The more specific of a pair of items would be

called marked, as in the case of dog (unmarked) vs. bitch (marked). Markedness

theory deals with the tendencies of linguistic properties to be found in all languages.

An unmarked property is one which accords with these tendencies, whereas a marked

property goes against them" (p.212).

Additionally, Richards, Platt and Weber (1998) defines markedness as "the

theory that in the languages of the world certain linguistic elements are basic, natural

and frequent (unmarked) than others which are referred to as 'marked'. For example,

in English, sentences which have the order: Subject-Verb-Object: I dislike such

people are considered to be unmarked, whereas sentences which have the order:

Object- Subject- Verb: Such people I dislike are marked (p.171).

Following that, Ellis (2006) highlights "Markedness has been defined in terms

of whether a grammatical structure is in some sense frequent, natural, and basic or

infrequent, unnatural and deviant from a regular pattern (Richards, Platt and Weber,

1985) Thus, the use of an infinitive without to following make as in He made me

31

follow him can be considered marked because make is one the few verbs in English

that takes this kind of complement and because this this pattern occurs only

infrequently" (p.88).

Similarly, Trask (2000) acknowledges that "[T]he unmarked form is the

'ordinary' or 'basic' form, while the . . . marked form differs from the first in

containing extra material or in being confined to special contexts. For example, cat is

unmarked, while its plural cats is marked by the suffix -s. Likewise, lion is

unmarked, while the female lioness is marked by the suffix -ess, and consistent is

unmarked in comparison with its negative inconsistent. The active sentence, the

police arrested Susie is unmarked with respect to its passive counterpart Susie was

arrested by the police, which contains more material" (p.108).

Finally, to put in a broader view, Kean (1970) states "It is argued here that

some conjunctions of specified features are more likely to occur than others; if a

segment is characterized by a likely set of specified features then that segment is

likely to occur in many languages. As a first approximation, the theory of

markedness can be said to be a theory of the most likely intrasegmental conjunctions

of specified features. A likely specification of a feature in a segment is termed an

unmarked specification; an unlikely one is termed a marked specification" (p.7).

In view of these definitions marked structures can be defined as unusual or

difficult. In English "passive form, plural –s, superlative and comparative forms" can

be stated as marked. On the other hand, "active form and basic adjectives can be

stated as unmarked. The idea behind this is that as the language structures get more

general, they become simpler.

2.5.2 Universal grammar & markedness. Universal Grammar can be defined

as the "system of categories, mechanisms and constraints shared by all human

languages and considered to be innate" (Chomsky, 1986, p. 3 ). In view of this

definition, 3 dimensions of UG are stated, which are "universality (all human

languages share a number of properties), convergence (all language learners

converge on the same grammar in spite of the fact that they are exposed to different

input), and poverty of the stimulus (children know things about language which they

could not have learned from the input available to them)" (Dąbrowska, 2015, p.1).

32

Core grammar is usually dealt with in universal grammar and it is also closely

related to markedness. Koster (1978) states "Core grammar is the optimally

accessible (i.e. learnable), unmarked part of language… Core grammar is also

responsible for the most rigid part of language. Its rules and conditions are either

invariant across languages, or fall within a very limited range… On the periphery of

language, anything learnable (in whatever way) is permissible. Thus knowledge of

language is seen to be organized in different layers from the practically invariant core

to the extreme periphery, where languages naturally differ a great deal. For the

language learner, core grammar is relatively easy to acquire; it is believed to be

deeply entrenched in human biology. Language learning, in this view, is the fixing of

parameters of core grammar, plus the addition of m arked rules up to the periphery"

(pp. 566-567).

As stated earlier, universal grammar is associated with marked and unmarked

grammar structures. Bardovi-Harlig (1987) confirms "Central to theory of Universal

Grammar are the notions of core and periphery. Core grammar is made up of

relatively unmarked rules. The theory of Universal Grammar claims that the

unmarked rules can be learned on the basis of very limited evidence while marked

rules require somewhat more evidence. Marked rules must be learned on the basis of

positive evidence because they cannot be assumed a priori by the learner to exist in

in the language" (pp. 385 -386). In view of these ideas, it is assumed unmarked forms

are learned before marked forms.

Similarly, in another study, Odlin (1994) states "The basic concept about

universal grammar (UG) is that language is knowledge stored in mind. This

knowledge consists of principles that do not vary from one person to another and

parameter settings that vary according to the particular language that the person

knows. … The human mind has built in knowledge principles that are part of its

knowledge of any language. But it also has 'parameters' within these principles

whose values are set to the actual language it learns. The principles are permanent

equipment in all minds; the parameters tune the principles to a particular language or

languages. A mind that knows English and one that knows French contain the same

language principles; the main difference between them is the different settings for the

33

language parameters" (pp.25-26). This brings us to the situation that these the same

language principles are unmarked forms which are natural in languages.

In the learning process of the target language, learning starts with what is

natural, a common parameter in both L1 and L2 and continues with what is different,

an uncommon parameter in L1. "Learning English means setting all the values for

UG parameters to those for English, learning French to those for French … What is

the initial setting for a parameter? It might be that a child starts from a neutral

parameter setting and then adopts one or other of the possibilities.

Setting A (pro-drop)

Neutral initial setting

Setting B (non –pro drop)

…The switch starts in one or other of the two positions and has to be reset to the

other position when necessary. In this case, the parameter has a default value, called

the unmarked setting, which children will retain unless something makes them

change it to the nondefault value, or marked setting, of the parameter. …Hymas

(1986) claims that young English children often produce sentences without subjects

such as, Want more bubbles or now wash my hands, and gradually learn that the

subject is compulsory. … So prodrop seems to be the unmarked setting from which

all children start, non pro-drop the marked setting" (as cited in Odlin, 1994, p.31).

In second language acquisition

Figure 3. Universal Grammar and Access

"If direct access is correct, L2 learners would start with the same values for

parameters as L1 children. If indirect access is correct, the starting point for L2

34

learners is the values of their first languages, which may or may not be the unmarked

settings for L1 acquisition" (Odlin, 1994, p.38).

What should be understood from this is that similarities between L1 and L2

decide upon whether the person goes from unmarked to marked or vice versa. This

can be interpreted that if an L2 learner is going to learn a different grammar structure

from L1, he or she has to switch from unmarked to marked. This switching can be

not easy as in unmarked structure. To give an example from Turkish, there is no

"present perfect tense" in Turkish. While learning English, a learner of English has to

change the parameter and create a new one to adapt to present perfect tense. It can be

said that present perfect tense is hard to be acquired by speakers of language that do

not contain "present perfect tense"

2.5.3 Markedness in language teaching context. Instructors do need to

differentiate among a range of grammar rules and adopt an appropriate method in

language learning environment. For instance, Petrovitz (1997) underlines "An

important and overlooked consideration is the kind of grammatical information upon

which the operation of a particular rule relies. … these types of information can be

distinguished as lexical, syntactic, or semantic " (p.201). He also adds "the important

thing is to differentiate the rules according to their information. For example,

subject-verb agreement, yes-no question formation depends on syntactic information.

However, rules depending on semantic information are distinguished by the fact that

it is often impossible to decide on their applicability in a given sentence apart from

considerations of meaning, context and the ways in which language is used. For

example, the selection of verb tenses, article usage" (p.207). Along with these

features, instructors are in need of identifying grammar structures as marked and

unmarked. Lots of studies are carried out to underline the importance of markedness

in language learning process. For example, Rutherford (1982) underlines the

importance of markedness in language learning process and he states "The

explanatory power of markedness criteria in language acquisition is beginning to be

demonstrated in more and more research, and markedness theory holds great

potential for a better understanding of second language acquisition" (p.362).

"markedness has been applied to the sequence in which constructions are acquired, to

35

the difficulty of acquiring certain constructions, and to the transferability of rules

across languages" (Batistella, 1990, p.118).

Studies focusing on markedness in language acquisition highlights as grammar

structures get more complicated one need to take markedness into consideration. For

example, Dressler, Kolaczyk & Spina (1996) says "Whenever a linguistic subsystem

becomes more complex, the introduction of markedness is necessarily involved. This

is unavoidable both in language acquisition and interactions between different

linguistic subsystems" (p.125). Also, Greenberg (1996) states "complexity of

expression can, in turn be stated directly in markedness terms where 'more complex'

is reflected in the addition of morphemes, the addition of features, or the addition of

rules. According to Clark and Clark (1978) 'if expression A can neutralize in

meaning in contexts that the almost equivalent expression B cannot, then B is more

complex than A' in both these instances 'more complex' is thus equated with 'more

marked'" (as cited in Rutherford, 1982, pp.86-87).

To be clearer about what a marked structure is Wurzel (1998) expresses "the

term marked is often used simply to characterize linguistic entities, which are felt to

deviate from the 'normal' in some sense" (p.55). To give an example, the plural

formation of the English nouns. "As is well known the normal plural formation is

carried out by the additive category marker –s, dog, dogs and cat, cats. But there

exists a small group of animal names with zero plurals like sheep-sheep and fish-fish.

It is evident that English plural forms with the marker –s are 'featured' and the forms

without the marker are 'unfeatured'; the relevant feature is just the –s. But in English

plural formation with a category marker is unmarked and plural formation without a

marker is marked" (Wurzel, 1998, p.62).

In another example, Dressler, Kolaczyk, Spina (1996) compares two sentences:

(1) Come in!

(2)Would you be so kind as to come in!

Clearly, the second alternative is highly marked in terms of syntactic,

morphological, lexical, prosodic, and stylistic when compared with the alternative (1)

(p.104).

36

Additionally, Rutherford (1982) states "plural from singular, past from present,

feminine from masculine, etc. where in each case the former is the marked member.

… negative from affirmative, interrogative from declarative, passive from active

where in each case the former is the marked/more complex member and requires

greater cognitive processing time" (p.87). Therefore, as unmarked forms are more

common, it is assumed that learners first gain understanding of what is neutral and

then unusual or uncommon forms. In this way, it can be interpreted that the more

complex a grammar structure is, the more time it takes to precede the information.

If focused on learning process of marked and unmarked forms, some

experiments have been carried out in order to be able to see the achievement of

learners in target forms. For example, Berent (1985) conducted two experiments

which were designed to assess adult L2 learners' production and comprehension of

English conditional sentences. The study supported the effect of markedness in

language acquisition. The study revealed that of real, unreal and past unreal

conditionals, the real conditionals were easiest to produce. These relative orders of

difficulty are assigned to markedness values. Additionally, Cinque (1982) focuses on

the relation between markedness and relative clauses comparing Italian, French and

English.

Because of the complexity of some grammar items and transfer from L1 into

L2, some studies stress that learners avoid using them. For instance, Kellerman

(1979) expresses "the less marked the structure the more likely it will be preferred as

the basis for transfer… the more marked the meaning the more likely the learner is to

avoid that lexical structure" (p.38). "Liceras (1985, 1986) has suggested that second

language learners begin by transferring the unmarked aspects of their first language

grammar to the second language and that overall there is a tendency for unmarked

structures rather than marked ones to be transferred into second language grammars"

(Batistella, 1990, p.120).

37

Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1 Philosophical Paradigm

The study was based on the effectiveness of an approach in certain grammar

structures such as marked and unmarked. Whether shifting from an inductive

approach to deductive approach is necessary or not in language learning process was

tried to be suggested. Therefore, a test was used to compare the scores of the learners

in two different groups in order to be able to see the impact of the approaches and an

interview was done to get the perceptions of the learners experiencing the

instructions.

3.2 Research Design

The study is both quantitative and qualitative. It is quantitative because a

quasi-experimental research design was applied in this study in order to be able to

find an answer to the research questions 1 and 2. By this way, it was aimed to

compare the effectiveness of the methods in teaching certain grammar structures.

The study was conducted at a state university. The treatment groups which received

two different instructions were conveniently selected. In Group 1, deductive

approach was implemented in teaching grammar structures. Participants took packet

A for unmarked structure and packet C for marked structure. On the other hand, in

Group 2 inductive approach was used. Participants took packet B for unmarked

structure and packet D for marked structure. As the study was based on comparing

the effectiveness of context in teaching marked and unmarked structures, future form

"will" was chosen as unmarked form, and "passive" was chosen as marked form. A

post-test was created and it was implemented two days later the students got the

instruction. It was implemented two days later because the participants may have

found the answers easily if they had taken the test on the same day. Both groups took

the same post-test. As this study was conducted in my regular teaching classrooms, I

followed the syllabus used at school and the participants got the instruction when

they were supposed to learn "will" and "passive". "will" form (unmarked) was the

first form to be taught during the first semester. In the second semester, "passive"

form was focused on following school's curriculum.

38

Table 2

Quasi- Experimental Research Design (Post-test only)

Instruction Group 1 Treatment in deductive approach in isolation Post test

Instruction Group 2 Treatment in inductive approach in context Post test

Table 2 is showing the number of groups and the instruction type that they

have taken. Apparently, there are 2 instruction groups, namely deductive and

inductive group which takes a post test after the instruction.

Table 3

The schedule used in the research process

Table 3 is making it clear the schedule used in the research process. The

process began in the first term in the twelfth week of the academic year. In the same

week, participants took Post test 1. In the third week of the second term, participants

got the instruction for passive. Similarly, they took Post test 2

Both treatment groups had 8 hours of main course instruction a week. Students

had four hours of main course instruction in two or three consecutive days. In both

groups, one hour was allocated for the instruction and activities. To start with Group

First Term

Unmarked

Future form "will"

Second Term

Marked

Passive Forms of all tenses

39

1, in packet A and C, students were given deductive grammar instruction providing

explicit information. The rules were presented by the teacher (researcher) and also

example sentences were given after each rule. After grammar presentation,

participants did grammar practice called traditional type of exercises namely gap-

filling, completion, reordering, choosing the correct form. Focusing on grammar

accuracy, all of them were controlled, mechanical and characterized by rather

emotionless effort. They didn't do any interpretation type of task or any kind of

activity which focuses on meaning. (see Appendix A and D)

However, having inductive instruction, Group 2 took packet B and D. Instead

of traditional presentation, participants did grammar consciousness raising tasks.

They were provided input. Following straightforward examples, they were aimed to

show explicit understanding of the targeted rule and describe it. After the instruction

process, participants did interpretation tasks instead of traditional grammar practices.

It was aimed to help learners develop their understanding of the target structure that

they were induced. (see appendix B and E)

Participants were tested twice throughout the study. They took Post test 1 after

the grammar instruction for unmarked structure "will" form and Post test 2 fo llowing

the grammar instruction for marked structure "passive" form. These post tests

measured the effects of deductive and inductive grammar instruction in different

types of tasks; grammar practice (traditional), interpretation, comprehension and

personal reflection (production). Grammar practice (traditional) exercises included

gap-filling, rewriting, which focuses on grammar accuracy. Interpretation tasks

incorporated comparing similar items and matching while comprehension and

personal reflection (production) tasks are designed to see the ability of them to show

understanding of the target structure and producing it. (see appendix C and F)

This study is also qualitative. In order to be able to find the perceptions of the

participants about inductive and deductive instruction, interviews were done.

Therefore, research questions 3, 4 and 5 were tried to be answered. 4 participants

from both groups were chosen randomly. These interviews were done one day after

the participants took the post test. By this way, the time interval between the post test

and the interview was kept short in case participants could forget the process of

40

instructions and the post test that they took. The interview included 6 questions

asking about their feelings and thoughts grammar learning in general and the specific

method used in the classroom. The same questions were used in all interviews. (see

appendix G)

Table 4

The schedule for research process in detail

3.3 Participants

The study was conducted at a state university in a Prep.School in İzmir in

2015-2016 Academic Year. In total, about 550 students were educated. Having been

registered for their departments, students took Proficiency Exam in the beginning of

the academic year. The ones who failed in the test were put into classrooms

according to their scores. There were three levels, namely A1, A2 and B1. Out of 25

classes, 14 of them were in A1 level. The total number of A1 level students was

around 350. This study was conducted in two of A1 level students. The total number

of the students in both classes is 44. However, there were 36 participants in the

study. 8 of them were eliminated as they hadn't wanted to participate in the study or

hadn't completed the tests. 18 of them were in one class and the other half was in the

other class. These were the classes that I was teaching. I randomly chose one of the

classes as instruction Group 1, which received instruction in deductive approach and

First Term

Unmarked

Future form "will"

Second Term

Marked

Passive Forms of all tenses

41

the other one as instruction Group 2, which received instruction in inductive

approach. The age of the participants varied between 18 and 20. Likewise, 18 of the

participants were female. They were all from Turkey. Most of the students who had

attended Anatolian High Schools had a successful educational background. Apart

from this, having realized the importance of a foreign language, they were motivated

and eager to learn English. The identities of the participants were kept secret. While

they were taking the tests, they didn't write their names instead their papers were

marked with a number.

3.4 Procedures

In this chapter, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, data

analysis procedures are stated. How validity, reliability and trustworthiness are

provided is expressed. Finally, limitations and delimitations are discussed.

3.4.1 Data collection instruments. As this study was both qualitative and

quantitative, two types of data collection instruments were used. For quantitative data

post tests were designed and implemented because post tests were most frequently

used tools in order to be able to get a clear understanding of differences among

different processes. The aim of these post tests was to show the success differences

between the two groups after each grammar instruction.

3.4.1.1 Quantitative Data Collection Instruments. Following grammar

instruction for unmarked structure, Post test 1 and likewise, following grammar

instruction for marked structure Post test 2 was implemented. In both tests, the total

number of the questions was 35. These tests included 4 different categories, gap-

filling (mechanical), interpretation, comprehension (listening) and personal reflection

(production) in a row. The number of gap-filling questions was 15, interpretation

questions 5, comprehension questions 10 and personal reflection questions 5. Gap-

filling questions were designed to measure the rate of success in accuracy. Similarly,

interpretation questions were intended to measure the ability of noticing the target

grammar structure correctly. After that, comprehension questions were aimed to

check understanding of the participants in a receptive (listening) skill. Finally, in

personal reflection questions, it was aimed to see whether the participants could state

their ideas in the target form. (see appendix C and F)

42

3.4.1.2 Qualitative data collection instruments. In order to be able to get the

perceptions of the participants about grammar learning in general and the specific

method used in the classroom, interviews were conducted with 8 participants. These

participants were selected randomly 4 of them from inductive group and the other

half from deductive group. 2 of them were male and 6 of them were female. Their

ages varied between 18 and 20. The interview included 6 questions. The interviews

which were done one day after the participants took the test were conducted four

times throughout the research. The interval between the post test and the interview

was kept short. It was aimed to get the ideas before the participants began to forget

the instruction and post test process. The same questions were used in each

interview. (see appendix G)

3.5 Data Collection Procedures

3.5.1 Quantitative data collection procedures. The present study was

based on a quantitative research design including convenience sampling. Participants

were given post test 1 after grammar instruction for unmarked structure "will" form

and post test 2 following grammar instructions for marked structure "passive" form.

There were 35 items in both tests. Both tests included 4 categories, namely gap-

filling, interpretation, comprehension and personal reflection (production). The

number of items in the first category is 15, 5 in the interpretation, 10 in

comprehension and 5 in the personal reflection (production) part.

To start with Post test 1, the first part, gap-filling, had two divisions. First, the

participants were asked to complete the dialogues with a verb from the list. They

tried to fill in the blanks in the correct form with the help of the pictures next to the

dialogues. Then they were asked to complete an e-mail by choosing an appropriate

verb in the correct form. In the second part, interpretation, the participants were to

identify whether the sentences were in past, present or future form and also functions

as promises, decisions or offers in future forms. It was a multiple choice part. The

third part, comprehension, the participants were wanted to listen a dialogue about

possible future changes and put a tick to the changes mentioned in the dialogue. In

the final part, production, they were asked to write their own ideas about what their

lives, their countries or the world will be like ten years from now. Some prompts

were given and they were free to use them or not. They were wanted to write 5

43

sentences in total. It was aimed to measure the score and compare the success rate of

both groups. The primary concern was to see which group was more successful in

which categories and in general and be able to make a comparison within and

between these groups.

To continue with Post test 2, the first part had two divisions as gap-filling and

rewriting. In gap-filling division, the participants were given a short text about Coca-

Cola and asked to fill in the gaps by using the verb in brackets either in active form

or passive form in a suitable tense. In rewrite division, they were to translate the

sentences from active form into passive form. In the second part, in interpretation,

they were given 5 pictures and wanted to match the sentences with these pictures.

The third part, comprehension, had two divisions. First, the participants were to

listen to a radio programme about inventions and complete the sentences with the

invention. After that, they were asked to listen again and answer the questions. In the

final part, production, the participants were given a text about alternative sentencing

and asked to write 5 advantages or disadvantages of it using target grammar structure

form. Similarly in Post Test 1, it was aimed to measure the score and compare the

success rate of both groups. The primary concern was to see which group was more

successful in which categories and in general and be able to make a comparison

within and between these groups.

3.5.2 Qualitative data collection procedures. The present study was also

based on qualitative research design because of the tools used to collect data.

Qualitative Research can be described as the process of collecting, analyzing, and

interpreting data by observing what people do and say. The nature of this type of

research is exploratory and open-ended. Small numbers of people are interviewed in-

depth and/or a relatively small number of focus groups are conducted. The interview

consisted of 6 questions. 4 of the questions were about grammar learning in general

and 2 of them were about the specific method used in the classroom and about Post

test 1 and Post test 2. The participants were asked oral semi-structured questions

having been given 30 minutes prior to the interview. This allowed the participants to

think about what they would like to say, thus giving richer data. In order to provide

better understanding of the students, the questions were translated into Turkish. The

voices of the students were recorded and the translation was done by the researcher.

44

3.6 Data Analysis Procedures

As the present study was based on both quantitative and qualitative research

design, the data analysis procedure was divided into two. The first part included the

analysis of Post test 1 and Post test 2 and the second part of the data analysis process

was to analyze the interviews done with the participants.

3.6.1 Quantitative data analysis procedures. Post tests 1 and 2 contained 35

questions in total. As the items were definite, one item-one, one and a half and 3

points procedure was used. That is, they got one point for one item in gap-filling

part, got one and a half points in comprehension part and 3 points for interpretation

and production part. Therefore, they did not have partially-correct responses, thus

partially-correct credits. For the blank and incorrect response, a score of zero was

assigned. The data collected from the test was entered manually on an excel table and

analyzed by calculating the mean scores for each part in the test. Afterwards, the

mean scores of the data collected from two groups were compared in a different

table.

Software called Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics

23) independent samples t-test was conducted to analyze the Post tests and how the

participants reacted to the items.

3.6.2 Qualitative data analysis procedures. The study sample is students. In

order to get a better understanding of the perceptions of the learners about deduction

and induction, an interview was done. Subjects were selected randomly, four from

each group. It could be said that after students giving us their perspectives, it was

hoped to triangulate the perceptions of the students with their test scores.

The interview was in Turkish because it was thought students would feel more

comfortable in expressing their ideas in their native language without being inhibited

by language barriers. One interviewer who was the researcher was present during the

interview. The voices of the participants were recorded and transcriptions were

analyzed then cross referenced to see how many overlapping themes evolve.

In order to be able to find answers to research questions 3, 4 and 5, it was

thought that interviews would be appropriate. In the analysis process, transcripts

45

were used to see what was generally said about the place of grammar and grammar

teaching methods and the test. After that, the data was coded by highlighting the

themes. Debriefing was done to check whether there was an overlap between the

perceptions of the students. Finally, themes were included to be used in the results

and conclusion part.

3.7 Reliability and Validity (for Quantitative Research)

The study is both quantitative and qualitative. To start with quantitative study,

Crocker and Algina (1986) say, "Test developers have a responsibility of

demonstrating the reliability of scores from their tests" (p. 106).

To increase the reliability of the study, items in the test were tried to be kept

clear, unambiguous and a common language was used. When the participants felt

any confusion about the instruction of questions, they were free to ask to the

researcher for clarification. As the study was based on measuring the knowledge of

grammar, the participants were free to use dictionaries for any unknown vocabulary.

Standard procedures of implementation were followed in both groups. Participants

comfort was taken into consideration. Any tired or unwilling participant was left out

from the study. It can be said that the result is replicable as long as these conditions

are provided.

For validity, Joppe (2000) provides the following explanation of what validity

is in quantitative research: Validity determines whether the research truly measures

that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In

other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit "the bull's eye" of your

research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of

questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of others" (p. 1). If

validity is divided into two as internal and external validity, for internal validity, the

tests were intended to measure what it set out to measure. Both in Post Test 1 and

Post Test 2, the target language structure was measured by using different types of

tasks, namely, gap-filling, comprehension, production, interpretation. For external

validity, the findings can be generalized to other groups who share similar

characteristics in language learning process.

46

3.8 Trustworthiness (For Qualitative Research)

When it comes to qualitative part of the study, Seale (1999), while establishing

good quality studies through reliability and validity in qualitative research, states that

the "trustworthiness of a research report lies at the heart of issues conventionally

discussed as validity and reliability" (p. 266). To increase the trustworthiness of the

study, purposeful sampling was done to learn and understand the phenomenon from

the participants who can best help. Also, the findings were tried to be triangulated.

Triangulation is typically a strategy (test) for improving the validity and reliability of

research or evaluation of findings. Mathison (1988) elaborates this by saying:

Triangulation has raised an important methodological issue in naturalistic and

qualitative approaches to evaluation [in order to] control bias and establishing valid

propositions because traditional scientific techniques are incompatible with this

alternate epistemology (p. 13). Therefore, the data collected during the interviews

was triangulated within inductive groups and deductive groups and it turned out that

participants of the interview generally agree with each other.

3.9 Limitations

The weaknesses of this study can be listed as lack of pre-test to measure the

knowledge of the target language forms of the participants before instruction

processes, lack of test again to reach a consistency, the participants were not tested

after some time they took Post test 1 and Post test 2. Similarly, the number of the

participants was 36 but it could have been more. By this way, the generalization

could be extended to a larger group.

3.10 Delimitations

It would not be too wrong to say that the study is one of the first studies that

make comparisons between inductive and deductive group focusing on markedness

issue in language teaching process. Two instructional groups were compared.

Following that, interviews were done to get the perceptions of the participants. The

study is both quantitative and qualitative. A pre-test was not implemented because

having taken proficiency exam, students were put into classrooms according to their

levels. The number of the participants was limited to 36 in total because it was aimed

to compare two groups under the instruction of the teacher (researcher) and some of

the participants were left out from the study for being unwilling or tired. However,

47

the important thing about this study is that the participants were selected

conveniently and they were randomly assigned into groups within a quasi-

experimental design. Both groups took equal number of instructional hours and

instructional activities and the instructions were given by the same teacher

(researcher). All these features make the research design of this study strong enough

to make reliable and to some extent generalizable results. Similarly, interviews were

conducted so as to triangulate the data, which increases the trustworthiness of the

study.

48

Chapter 4

Results

In this chapter, the findings are revealed. As previously stated, data were

analyzed in two separate parts; qualitative and quantitative. Therefore, data were

discussed in two parts.

4.1 Quantitative Results

As the study aims to find out whether inductive group or deductive group is

more successful in learning process, a comparison was made between and within two

groups.

RQ1: To what extent is teaching grammar inductively effective in unmarked

and marked structures?

RQ1 seeks to investigate how successful inductive group has been in marked

and unmarked structures and especially in which types of questions they have been

more successful.

Table 5

Mean scores of the inductive group in marked and unmarked structures

Table 5 shows us mean scores of the inductive group in marked (post test 2)

and unmarked structures (post test 1). It gives us an opportunity to see changes in the

49

scores. For unmarked structures, one can clearly notice that the highest score is in

comprehension part and the lowest score is in interpretation part in Post test 1.

Similarly, the highest score is in comprehension part in Post test 2. However, the

lowest score is in production part in Post test 2. There has been a decrease in the

scores in production and comprehension while there has been an increase in

interpretation and gap-filling part. However, the difference is significant only in

production part (p=.001) and in interpretation part (p=.013). All in all, in general

inductive group is more successful in unmarked structures.

RQ 2: To what extent is teaching grammar deductively effective in unmarked

and marked structures?

RQ2 aims to find an answer how successful deductive group has been in

marked and unmarked structures and especially in which types of questions they

have been more successful.

Table 6

Mean scores of the deductive group in marked and unmarked structures

Table 6 reveals mean scores of the deductive group in marked (post test 2) and

unmarked structures (post test 1). Comparing the scores, it is obvious that the highest

score is in interpretation part and the lowest score is in gap-filling part in post test 2.

On the other hand, the highest score is in comprehension part and the lowest score is

50

in interpretation part in post test 1. The scores tend to increase in all parts except

production part. However, the differences are only significant in interpretation part

(p =.000) and in production part ( p =.045). All in all in general, deductive group is

more successful in marked structures.

RQ3: Is teaching grammar inductively or deductively more effective in

unmarked structures?

RQ3 tries to find an answer which group is more successful in unmarked

structures by comparing the scores.

Table 7

Mean scores of the deductive and inductive group in Post Test 1 (unmarked)

When looked at table 7, one can clearly see that both inductive and deductive

group has similar scores. It is also revealed that the differences between scores are

insignificant. However, inductive group has been a little bit more successful in gap-

filling and production part in the test. Interestingly, their scores are the same in

interpretation part. Participants have the lowest scores in interpretation part. On the

other hand, both groups have the highest scores in comprehension part.

51

RQ4: Is teaching grammar deductively or inductively more effective in marked

structures?

RQ4 tries to find an answer which group is more successful in marked

structures by comparing the scores.

Table 8

Mean scores of the deductive and inductive group in Post Test 2

Table 8 clearly highlights both deductive and inductive group has similar

scores but deductive group has been slightly more successful in interpretation,

comprehension and production part in the test. However, the differences between

scores are not significant. Most correct answers have been given in comprehension

part. On the other hand, participants are the least successful in production part.

RQ5: Is teaching grammar deductively or inductively is more effective for

marked and unmarked structures?

RQ5 aims to reach a general judgment about which group is more successful

in which structure.

52

Table 9

General mean scores of the inductive and deductive groups

Unmarked

Unmarked

Marked

Marked

deductive

inductive

deductive

inductive

39.056

40.250

41.111

39.278

8.5041

9.5752

8.6306

8.4178

2.0044

2.2569

2.0342

1.9841

In table 9, general mean scores of both groups in Post test 1 and 2 are shown.

It is obvious that there has been a decrease in the scores of inductive group in Post

test 2 while there has been an increase in the scores of deductive group in Post test 2.

This finding brings us to the conclusion that while inductive group is more successful

in Post test 1 in unmarked structures, deductive group is more successful in Post test

2 in marked structures. However, the differences between scores are insignificant.

4.2 Qualitative Results

As the study aims to get the perceptions of the participants about grammar

learning in general and the specific method used in the classroom, emerging themes

and example sentences are stated in the tables below.

RQ6: What are the perceptions of students about learning grammar in general?

Table 10

Emerging themes from students' perceptions of learning grammar in general

Learning grammar

necessary

o It is important to know

which form to use when

talking or writing.

o To express ourselves

accurately

53

o Using the language

accurately is important

o We can develop our

knowledge of grammar

by noticing the

structures in reading

o We can elicit meaning

from examples

o Instead of memorizing,

we can use charts, mind

maps to keep the rules in

mind.

Second most important

among reading, writing,

speaking, listening

o We should get the

knowledge how to speak

or write.

o I can't read or write

without knowing the

grammar rules

o Just knowing grammar

rules is not enough

In table 10, one can clearly see the emerging themes and opinions of the

participants about grammar learning in general. According to the table, it can be

stated that nearly all of the participants agree on the fact that grammar learning is

necessary because they are aware of the fact that using language appropriately and

expressing oneself accurately is of great importance while trying to communicate in

the target language. Apart from that, participants are of the opinion that grammar

rules should not be memorized and state that they don't memorize them. They

support the fact that noticing the structures in reading, using mind maps or elicitation

meaning from examples would be more beneficial while studying. Additionally, half

54

of the participants ranked grammar as the second most important thing among other

skills. They are in agreement that just knowing grammar rules is not enough but the

knowledge of it is necessary to be able to write or speak in the target language.

RQ7: How do students feel about learning marked and unmarked structures

deductively?

Table 11

Students' perceptions of deductive method

o Explanation of the rules make it

clear to understand the target

structure

o Only practicing the rules is not

enough.

o Learning along with other

structures not in isolated way

would be more beneficial.

o At first, I felt that I learned while I

was doing the exercises but later as

it got more complicated especially

used with other structures and I

thought it wasn't real life like.

Table 11 acknowledges the perceptions of deductive group about deductive

method. Most of the comments made by participants are negative. However, one

participant say that explanation of rules makes it clear to grasp the understanding of

the target grammar structures. They are of the opinion that learning grammar rules

should not be in isolated way but in a context consisting of not only target grammar

forms but also other ones. In this way, they believe it would be more real life like and

beneficial. Apart from these, the most interesting comment that takes attention is

some participants feel like they are learning in the early phrase of the process but

55

they get confused when they encounter newly learned grammar forms along with

other grammar structures.

RQ8: How do students feel about learning marked and unmarked structures

inductively?

Table 12

Students' perceptions of inductive method

o Eliciting the rules from a text full of

example sentences was beneficial

o The process was effective because

students were active but the

teacher was passive. I think

teachers should stay in

background more.

o I was able to grasp the meaning of

the structures. I felt that I was

learning while I was discovering.

o In the beginning of the instruction,

I got confused about what we were

doing and had difficulty in

understanding. But later, I realized

that we came up with the rules.

When looked at table 12, it can be figured out that most of the comments

about inductive method are positive. Participants agree on the fact that elicitation

from a context full of examples is beneficial in learning process. Similarly, they

highlight teachers should stay in background and students should be engaging in the

learning process actively instead of just listening to the teacher. Additionally,

discovering makes them feel they are learning. However, there is one negative

comment which is the fact that it can be confusing in the beginning of the instruction

56

and they may have difficulty understanding what they are doing or what they are

supposed to come up with.

Table 13

General overview of the results

1. Deductive group is more successful in

marked structures.

1. The most emerging theme is learning

grammar is necessary.

2. Inductive group is more successful in

unmarked structures.

2. Overall, students are in favor of

inductive approach.

3. Deductive group is more successful

than inductive group in production and

interpretation part in marked structures.

3. The participants are in favor of

noticing grammar structures, eliciting

meaning out of context instead of

memorizing.

4. The least successful part of inductive

group is production part in marked

structures.

4. The participants support the idea that

students should be active and teachers

should be passive, let them discover the

language.

5. Inductive group is more successful in

production and gap-filling part in

unmarked structures.

Table 13 shows a summary of results.

57

Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions

5.1 Introduction

This chapter includes a discussion of the results of the experiment that

compared two instructional groups, deductive and inductive both within and between

each other. The chapter begins with discussion of findings for research questions and

following that, conclusions and recommendations for future research are stated.

5.2 Discussion of Findings for Research Questions

The study aimed to compare the two groups and get the perceptions of the

participants about the methods used in the process of language learning. The results

showed that there were some differences between these groups. Inductive group was

more successful in unmarked structures and deductive group was more successful in

marked structures. However, these differences are insignificant. It was also revealed

that most participants were in favor of inductive approach because it let them

discover the target language forms by themselves.

To start with the discussion of the results of the experiment by giving the

research questions,

RQ1: To what extent is teaching grammar inductively effective in unmarked

and marked structures?

There is a significant difference between the scores of unmarked and marked

structures in interpretation part. While their score was low in unmarked, they made

an important progress in marked structures. This suggests that they have been

successful in identification. However, there has been a serious decrease in production

part in Post Test 2, marked structures. This situation is in accordance with "explicit

instruction may very well lead to implicit knowledge" (Jean and Simard, 2013,

p.1024). What can be understood from it is that being exposed to input under explicit

instruction, learners get better at performing tasks.

RQ 2: To what extent is teaching grammar deductively effective in unmarked

and marked structures?

58

There have been increases in all parts of the tests except production part. This

situation brings us to the conclusion that explicit instruction, deduction, has

facilitated acquisition of marked structures. Lots of studies can be stated that support

this idea. "Many researchers in the field have agreed that some elements of explicit

instruction, or focus on various forms of the target language, could make a difference

and facilitate the learning of a foreign language(Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002a;

Aski, 2005; DeKeyser, 1998; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 1997, 2001, 2002,

2008a, 2008b; Fotos, 2003; Long, 1983; Norris &Ortega, 2000; VanPattern, 2003)"

(Vogel, Herron, Cole and York, 2011, p.354).

RQ3: Is teaching grammar inductively or deductively more effective in

unmarked structures?

Although the differences between two groups are insignificant, it can be

concluded that inductive group has been more successful in unmarked structures. "A

leading idea being that unmarked aspects of grammar arise naturally in the course of

language learning with little or no effort or evidence required, while marked aspects

of grammar require more specific evidence and more effort to learn" (Battisttella,

p.12). This parallels DeKeyser (1998) who states some kind of focus on form is

useful to some extent, for some forms, for some students, at some point in learning

process" (p.42)

RQ4: Is teaching grammar deductively or inductively more effective in marked

structures?

Despite insignificant differences between the scores, it has been revealed that

deductive group is more successful in marked structures. The thing is "Markedness

theory predicts the mastery of specific structures at a particular stage in the

acquisition process as reflected through relative degrees of difficulty in producing

those structures" (Berent, 1985, p.362). To give an example from a study conducted

on production and comprehension of conditionals, the most difficult one is past

unreal and then unreal and the easiest one is real. In implication, it turned out "given

the relative degrees of markedness assigned to real, unreal and past unreal

conditionals, the order of success in producing conditional verb forms, whereby

subjects were most successful on real conditionals, less successful on real

59

conditionals, and least successful on past unreal conditionals parallels the

markedness characteristics of the sentence types involved" (Berent, 1985, p.362).

RQ5: Is teaching grammar deductively or inductively more effective for

marked and unmarked structures?

Comparing overall scores brings us to the conclusion that while inductive

group is more successful in unmarked structures, deductive group is more successful

in marked structures. This finding supports Hammerly (1982) states "Certain

structures are most amenable to a deductive approach while others many others can

be learned very well by inductive approach" (as cited in Decoo, 1996, p.100).

As Rutherford (1982) stated "plural from singular, past from present, feminine

from masculine, etc. where in each case the former is the marked member. …

negative from affirmative, interrogative from declarative, passive from active where

in each case the former is the marked/more complex member and requires greater

cognitive processing time" (p.87). more time is needed for acquisition of more

difficult structures to be learned. This process may involve more explanation in

detail.

"Hammerly (1982)devises a chart for the determination of teaching procedure

for individual rules, based on similarity and dissimilarity with the native language

and with the degree of difficulty. He claims that the dissimilar and more difficult

items need to be explained through deduction, the similar and easy items through

induction" (as cited in Decoo, 1996, p.101). Similarly, "Fisher believes if the foreign

language grammar rule is similar or dissimilar but simpler than the native language

rule, then an inductive approach is the most appropriate, if the foreign language

grammar rule is dissimilar and of equal or greater complexity than the native

language rule, a deductive approach is to be preferred" (as cited in Decoo, pp.101-

102).

RQ6: What are the perceptions of students about learning grammar in general?

The interviews done with the participants concluded that learners agree on the

fact that learning grammar is necessary, which suggests some attention to grammar is

necessary. There are some researches that support this idea. For example, "this

60

research suggested that some type of focus on grammatical forms was necessary if

learners were to develop high levels of accuracy in the target language. (Harley &

Swain, 1984; Lapkin, Hart, & Swain, 1991; Swain, 1985; Swain & Lapkin, 1989)"

(cited in Nassaji and Fotos, 2004, p. 128). In other examples, Long (1983)

concluded that grammar instruction contributes importantly to language learning. In

later reviews, R. Ellis (1990, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2002a), N. Ellis (1995), and Larsen-

Freeman and Long (1991) suggest that, while instructed language learning may not

have major effects on sequences of acquisition, it has facilitative effects on both the

rate and the ultimate level of L2 acquisition. (cited in Nassaji and Fotos, 2004, p.

129).

Also, using language accurately is primary concern and memorization is not an

ideal thing to do while studying grammar. Al -Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam (2011) "For

many L2 learners, learning grammar often means learning the rules of grammar and

having an intellectual knowledge of grammar…. A better approach is perhaps to see

grammar as one of many resources that we have in language which helps us to

communicate. We should see how grammar relates to what we want to say or write,

and how we expect others to interpret what our language use and its focus " (pp.70-

71).

RQ7: How do students feel about learning marked and unmarked structures

deductively?

The participants stated explanation of rules made it easy to get the

understanding of target language forms. This supports "a recent meta-analysis of 49

studies on the effectiveness of L2 instruction (Norris & Ortega, 2000) concludes that

explicit instruction (presenting the structure, describing and exemplifying it, and

giving rules for its use) results in substantial gains in the learning of target

structures" (Nassaji and Fotos, 2004, p. 129).

According to them, grammar rules should not be taught in an isolated way but

in a context consisting of not only target grammar forms but also other forms. They

also acknowledge that just doing practices is not enough and not real life like. Based

on sayings of the participants, one can state that a strictly linear approach is generally

used in language learning process. "A strictly linear approach is based on the premise

61

that learners acquire one grammatical item at a time, and that they should

demonstrate their mastery of one thing before moving on to the next. For example, in

learning English, a student should master one tense form, such as the simple present,

before being introduced to other forms, such as the present continuous or the simple

past" (Nunan, 1998, p. 101). Although, it is common to use this approach, some

researchers do not favor it because it causes deterioration in knowledge not

improvement and suggests linear approach instead of strictly linear approach. "When

we observe learners as they go about the process of learning another language, we

see that, by and large, they do not acquire language in the step-by-step, building

block fashion suggested by the linear model… Accuracy does not increase in a linear

fashion, from 20% to 40% to 100%; at times, it actually decreases. … From such a

perspective, learners do not learn one thing perfectly, one item at a time, but

numerous things simultaneously (and imperfectly) (Nunan, 1998, pp. 101-102). More

importantly, "we need to go beyond linear approaches and traditional form-focused

methodological practices in the — grammar class, and that while such practices

might be necessary, they do not go far enough in preparing learners to press their

grammatical resources into communicative use" (Nunan, 1998, p.108).

RQ8: How do students feel about learning marked and unmarked structures

inductively?

It was made clear that elicitation from a context full of examples is beneficial

for understanding the usage of target language forms. In this way, they would be able

to be more active in the process, which was better for learning. Discovering made

learners feel they were learning. Hammerly (1982) expresses for the inductive

approach that it allows the learners to discover by themselves how a part of language

works. This makes the learning process more interesting and according to

psychologists such learning by discovery is better retained (Decoo, 1996, p.101).

This discovery also helps learners develop their language awareness. "Language

awareness is a mental attribute which develops through paying motivated attention to

language in use, and which enables language learners to gradually gain insights into

how languages work" (Bolitho et.al, 2003, p.251). What is more, increasing their

language awareness, students have a reason for learning. "Language awareness offers

opportunities for affective engagement, personal investment and the raising of self-

62

esteem (Donmall, 1985, p.7). Support comes from researchers (e.g. Schumann, 1997)

who argue that gives values, reasons, and motivation for learning" (Bolitho et.al,

2003, p.253).

5.2 Conclusions

It is no wonder that grammar teaching has occupied teachers, researchers,

students for a period of time and it is still being debated. Lots of questions arise in

the learning and teaching process, for example, how to teach, what to teach, when to

teach, which methods are better, etc. Comparing inductive and deductive approach

for marked and unmarked structures, this study tries to answer some of these

questions.

This study has provided some considerations that instructors should keep in

mind to better plan their language teaching process. Firstly, and most importantly, it

was found that while inductive group was more successful in unmarked structures,

deductive group was more successful in marked structures. As stated earlier, being

more complex and difficult to perceive, focus on form explicitly is necessary in

teaching marked structures. Explicit instruction would ease the process of acquisition

of marked structures. Students would need much time to grasp the usage of these

structures to a good extent. However, inductive approach would be more appropriate

in unmarked structures which are natural and rather easy part of the language.

Students would be able to discover and identify target forms without the need of

explanation of the rules by the teacher. Secondly, it was found that production of

marked structures is difficult for learners in this study as well as other researches

stated earlier. On the other hand, students are quite successful in noticing or

identifying unmarked structures. This is also related to the nature of unmarked

structures being easy to perceive and also parallels that retention of marked

structures take much time. Following that, it was revealed that some attention to

grammar is necessary because of being able to use the target language accurately and

appropriately. General assumption is that grammar should not be the focus of

learning process; instead, a mean for being able to communicate in the target

language. After that, it was highlighted that teaching of grammar rules should not be

63

always in an isolated way but in context full of examples of target forms and familiar

forms. This situation would give a chance for students to link familiar forms with

unfamiliar ones. Finally, it was stated that elicitation from a context would be more

beneficial for students and make them take the responsibility of their own learning.

By this way, their language learning awareness would increase. According to the

participants, students should engage in the lessons more and be active while teachers

stay in background. This would make language learning environment more

interesting for students.

All in all, I believe that this study has provided results that any instructor can

take advantage of and generalize to other circumstances in second language

acquisition.

5.3 Recommendations for future research

Comparing the scores of two groups, no significant differences were found.

For this reason, further research can be done with a larger number of participants. In

this way, results are possible to change. Also, a pre-test to measure the knowledge of

the learners about target language forms and also a delayed post test would be more

appropriate to implement in the research process. Finally, it can be said that more

elaborate question types containing an even number of question items could be

prepared for tests.

65

REFERENCES

Al-Mekhlafi, A. M., & Nagaratnam, R. P. (2011). Difficulties in Teaching and

Learning Grammar in an EFL Context. Online Submission, 4(2), 70-71.

Bardovi‐ Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and Salience in Second‐Language

Acquisition. Language Learning, 37(3), 385-386.

Battistella, E. L. (1990). Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of

Language (p p.12-118). N.p.: SUNY Press.

Berent, G. P. (1985). Markedness Considerations in the Acquisition of Conditional

Sentences. Language Learning, 35(3), 362.

Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanic, R., Masuhara, H. & Tomlinson, B.

(2003). Ten questions about language awareness, ELT Journal 57/3: 251-255.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach To Language

Pedagogy (p p.48-351). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on Grammatical Form: Explicit or

Implicit? System, 30, 433-458.

Bussman, H. (1998). Markedness. In K. Kazzazi & G. Trauth (Eds.), Routledge

Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (new ed., pp. 294-295). N.p.: Taylor &

Francis.

Clare, A., & Wilson, J. (1st ed.). SpeakOut Pre-Intermediate Student's Book. New

Jersey: Pearson.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use . New

York, NY: Praeger.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory.

Toronto: Holt, RineHart, and Winston, Inc.

Crystal, D. (1999). Markedness. The Penguin Dictionary of Language (Second ed.,

p. 212).

66

Dabrovska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen

it? Frontiers in Psychology Language Sciences, 1. Retrieved from

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852/full

Decoo, W. (1996). The Induction-Deduction Opposition: Ambiguties and

Complexities of the Didactic Reality. IRAL- International Review of Applied

Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34 (2), 96-102.

DeKeyser, R. (2008). 11 Implicit and Explicit Learning. The handbook of second

language acquisition, 27 , 313.

Donmall, B. G. (1985). Language Awareness. National Congress on Languages in

Education Assembly (4th, York, England, July 1984). NCLE Papers and

Reports 6. p.7.

Dressler, W. U. (2001). Sources of markedness in language structures. Folia

linguistica historica, 35 (Historica vol. 22, 1-2), 103-136.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective.

TESOL QUARTERLY, 40(1), 84-98.

Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the

acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The

Modern Language Journal, 87 (2), 242-243.

Fertig, D. (2014). Markedness and Morphological Change. Retriewed from:

http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/fertig/fertig/Potsdam2014/MorphC

hangeCourse2-Markedness.pdf

Freeman, D. L. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (pp. 14-

117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harmer, J. (1989). Teaching and Learning Grammar (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching (third ed.) N.p.:

Pearson Education Limited.

67

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed). N.p.:

Pearson Education Limited.

Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2013). Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction:

Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning

styles. System, 41(4), 1024.

Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1999). Grammar Teaching in the Foreign Language

Context. In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (First ed., pp. 146-

147).

Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved from

http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm

Kean, M. L. (1975). The Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar Mary-

Louise Kean Submitted to the Department of Foreign Literatures & Linguistics

(Doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, USA.

Kellerman, E. (1979). The Problem with Difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin

p.38.

Koster, J. (1978). Conditions, empty nodes, and markedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(4),

566-567.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching (Sixth ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Grammar and its teaching: Challenging the myths.

Grammar Dimensions: Form, Meaning, and Use. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Lathon, C., Koenig, L., & Oxenden, C. (2012). Oxford English File Student's

Book (third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lathon, C., Koenig, L., & Oxenden, C. (2012). Oxford English File Workbook (third

ed., pp. 37-39). N.p.: Oxford University Press.

Lebeau, I., & Rees, G. (n.d.). Language Leader Student's Book (p. 47). N.p.: Pearson

Education Limited.

68

Mart, . T. (2013, January). Teaching Grammar in Context: Why and How? Theory

and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 124.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.

Mollin, S. (2006). English as a Lingua Franca: A New Variety in the New Expanding

Circle? Nordic Journal of English Studies ,5 (2), 45-54. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.7052&rep=rep1

&type=pdf

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). 6. Current developments in research on the teaching

of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 128-129.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research

synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching Grammar in Context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 102-109.

Nunan, S. L. (2005). Forging ourselves and forging ahead: Teaching grammar in a

new millennium. English Journal, 70-75.

Odlin, T. (Ed.). (1994). Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Petrovitz, W. (1997, July 1). The Role of Context in the Presentation of

Grammar. ELT Journal, 51(3), 201-204.

Radford, A. (1998). Transformational Grammar (First ed.). UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Markedness. In Longman Dictionary of

Applied Linguistics (p. 171).

Rutherford, W. E. (1982, June 1). Markedness in Second Language

Acquisition. Language Learning, 32(1), 86-87.

Samarin, W. (1987). Lingua franca. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. Mattheier(Eds

.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and

society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

69

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.

Scott, V. M. (1990). Explicit and Implicit Teaching Strategie: New Empirical Data.

The French Review, 63(5), 779.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research Perspectives On Teaching English As A Lingua

Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from

http://people.ufpr.br/~clarissa/pdfs/ELFperspectives_Seidlhofer2004.pdf

Shaffer, C. (1989). A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive to Teaching Foreign

Languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 1

Smith, A. K. (2013). Grammar In Context and Isolated Units: the Impact of

Dichotomized Teaching Methods In A Rural Southern High School (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from

http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1877&context=etd

Thornbury, S. (2002). How To Teach Grammar (Fourth ed). UK: Pearson Education

Limited.

Trask, R. L. (2000). Markedness. In The Penguin Dictionary of English

Grammar (first ed.). UK

Tütüniş, B. (2012). Grammar in EFL Pedagogy: To be or not to be: Explicit or

implicit grammar instruction in EFL. International Journal of Humanities and

Social Science, 2(5), 122.

Ulatowska, Hanna K. and Baker, William D.

On a Notion of Markedness in Linguistic Systems: Application to

Aphasia. In Clinical Aphasiology Conference: Clinical Aphasiology

Conference (1975 : 5th : Santa Fe, NM : April 30-May 2, 1975) / : BRK

Publishers(1975), p 153.

Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided

inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the

intermediate‐ level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2),

353-380.

70

White, R. (1997). Going Round in Circles: English as an International Language, and

Cross Cultural Capability. Proceedings of the Languages for Cross-cultural

apability Conference, Leeds Metropolitan University, 12_14, December.

Widodo, H. P. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English

Teaching: Practice and Critique,5 (1),122. Retrieved from

http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/2006v5n1nar1.pdf

Wurzel, W. U. (1998). On markedness. Theoretical Linguistics, 24(1), 55-62.

Zhang, J. (2009). Necessity of grammar teaching. International Education

Studies, 2(2), 184.

71

APPENDICES

A. Materials Used for Unmarked Structure in Deductive Instruction

Explicit Information: Uses of "will"

 Some examples of will (will + verb)

 I'll speak to you later.

 It won't cost a lot.

 Will you help me?

 The forms of will are the same for all persons:

 Positive: I/you/he/she/it/we/they will/'ll help

 Negative: I/you/he/she/it/we/they will not/won't help

 Questions: will I/you/he/she/it/we/they help

 We use will for actions in the future that we decide to do at the moment of

speaking. We think first and speak using will at the same time that we decide.

 I am not sure what to order… OK, I'll have the Chef's special dish.

(someone is looking at a menu in a restaurant.)

 A: Do you want the blue or red pen? B: I'll take the red one.

 A: I have a headache. B: Wait here. I'll bring an aspirin for you.

 We use will for offering to do something.

 Sit down! I will do the washing up. (the speaker offers help after a

meal.)

 A: I'll carry your suitcases. B: Thank you. A: Don't mention it.

 We use will for promises.

 Don't worry. I won't tell anyone your secret.

 I will study harder and pass my exams next year, Mum!

 We use will to give opinions about the future. We often use phrases like I'm

sure, I think, I don't think before will to give opinions about the future.

 I'm sure you'll feel better soon.

 I think you'll pass your driving test, you won't fail again.

 We use will for facts about the future.

 My daughter will be 5 years old next year.

 I'll be 30 next week.

72

Exercises: 1. Write the sentences using the pictures and prompts below.

Exercise: 2. Complete the sentences with these verbs.

1. A: Jack phoned while you were out.

B: Thanks. I'll ________ him back in a minute.

2. A: Do you want to borrow some money?

B: Yes, please. I'll _________ you back next week.

3. A: The person you want to see isn't here. She is at lunch.

1. call/you tomorrow 2. Lend / you/ some money 3. Have/ the chicken

___________________. _______________________? _______________________.

4. Take/ your coat.

______________________.

5. not /be late.

____________________.

73

B: That is OK. I'll _______ back later.

4. A: It is really nice top, but it doesn't fit me.

B: Don't worry. I will __________ it back to the shop and change it.

5. A: Have you finished that book I lent you?

B: Yes. I'll ___________ it back to you tomorrow.

Exercise 3: Choose the correct verb form.

1. A: Have you decided which university to apply for?

B: Oh, yes. I'll /I am going to apply for Oxford.

2. A: I haven't got your mobile number.

B: Really? I'll / I am going to text it to you right now.

3. A: We don't have any fruit in the house.

B: I'll go /I am going shopping this afternoon. I'll / I am going to buy some apples.

4. A: My bag is really heavy.

B: Give it to me. I'll carry / I am going to carry it for you.

5. A: Tony is back from holiday.

B: Is he? I am going to /I'll give him a ring.

Exercise 4: Complete the text with the correct form of the verb. Use short forms if

possible.

I ______ (1)(go) on holiday with my best friend next week and I've just finished making the

travel arrangements! I (2)_______(meet) Jack at the station at five o'clock and we (3)_____

(leave) on the 5.30 train. We (4)______ (catch) the ferry at Dover at 7 p.m. We haven't

booked anywhere to stay yet, so we (5)______ (find) a hotel when we arrive. We haven't

got a lot of money, so we (6)_____ (look for) somewhere cheap. I can't wait! I'm sure we

(7)_____ (have) a fantastic time!

74

B. Materials Used for Unmarked Structure in Inductive Approach

a) Read the dialogues. What do you think the missing phrases are?

1) A: That's two burgers, a double portion of chips, and two ice cream

sundaes. Anything else?

B: Yes, ____________, please.

2) A: Do I want to go back to the previous version? Do I press Yes or

No?

B: I need to do my homework now. ____________ when I finish.

3) A: ____________! I promise!

B: Well, hurry up. I can't wait much longer.

A: Just one more kiss…

b) Listen and complete the blanks.

c) Look at the dialogues again. In which one does somebody…?

Promise to do something

Decide to have something

Offer to do something

d) Look at the cartoon. Which fish is an optimist? Why? Are you an optimist or

a pessimist?

e) You text one of your friends. Read "you say" phrases, then write "a pessimist

friend" says responses.

 I am sure he won't pay you back.

75

 I think you won't pass because you haven't practiced a lot.

 I don't think you will find parking space because it is really crowded

at this time of the day.

I'm doing my driving test this

afternoon.

I've lent James some money.

I and my sister are going to drive

the city centre.

f) Look at the A pessimist friend says phrases again.

 Do they refer to the present or the future?

 Do they state opinions?

RULES:

1. _______________________ For example, "It's Janes's birthday." "Is it? I'll

buy her

some flowers.

2. _______________________ For example, "My cousin is very ill." "Don't

worry. She

will be OK.

3. _______________________ For example, "Don't worry." "I'll never let you

down!" I

swear.

4. _______________________ For example, "This bag is full of books. I can't

move it"

"It's alright. I'll help you carry it."

Exercises:

76

I. Match each example of "will" with their uses 1 to 4. You may use one rule more than

once.

A: What are you going to wear to the wedding?

B: I don't know. I thought about wearing my suit but I think I will buy a new one. What

about you? ___

A: I think there is no need to buy a new one. What about presents?

B: Oh, right! I have completely forgotten it.

A: I suppose I will buy a painting for decoration. ____

B: That sounds good. I will also buy something for decoration, then. ___

A: OK. Shall we go?

B: Yes. Can you open the door? My hands are full.

A: Wait a second! I will help you. ____

B. I can't believe. She will be married next week. ____

A: Yeah. But I promise I will keep an eye on her. ____

II. Circle the correct option.

1. Is the the sentence in bold in ??

A: Look at all these preparations! There are lots of foods and drinks and the decoration is

awesome.

B: I think everyone will have great time.

a) present b) future

2. Match the sentences with the pictures.

A. B.

C. TEST for Unmarked Structure (will)

a. (gap-filling, traditional type of grammar exercises)

1. I think she will be a great

mother.

2. She is a great mother.

77

1. Complete the dialogues with a verb from the list.

Remember – fall – sell – forget – win – miss

2. Fill in the blanks with the correct form of the verbs.

Sam's friend Eddie is going to live in another country. Complete Sam's e-mail to Eddie

using will and the correct verbs from the box. You will need to form negatives and

questions in some gaps.

A: I am going climbing next

weekend.

B: It is very dangerous. I hope

you _____

A: I am playing in the tennis final

tomorrow.

B: The other player is very good.

Unfortunately, I think you

_______

A: I am going to study all

evening.

B: I hope you _______

everything in the morning.

A: I told Nick that it is Jane's

birthday on Friday.

B: You know Nick. He _______

He is very careful about these

things.

A: I am getting the 8:50 train.

B: It is leaving in five minutes. I

am afraid. You ______it.

78

I am sure you'll have a great time in your new country. You (1) ____________ lots of new

people and you (2) __________ all about a different culture. And you (3) __________ so

busy when you get there that you(4) _________ your friends or this country too much. Of

course things (5) _________ the same here without you. I am sure we (6) _______about you

and we (7) ___________ what you are doing. We certainly (8) ___________ you. I am sure

it (9) __________ long before we see each other again. Perhaps I (10) _________ and visit

you some time next year.

b. Interpretation questions

1. Circle the correct option..

Picture 1

Picture 2

According to picture 1,

I am sure there will be robots at our

homes in the next 20 years.

a) present b) future

According to the weather forecast in

picture 2, the weather will be really hot

tomorrow.

a) present b)future

Tell – come – meet – talk – be – learn – write – send – fix - wonder –

contact - forget – miss – keep

79

Picture 3

Picture 4 Picture 5

c. Comprehension Questions

1. Listen to the sentences. Are these sentences promises (p), decisions (d), or

offers (o)?

1. I'll drive you home. _

2. I'll remember to tell her. _

3. I'll help you clean your room, if you like. _

4. I'll have the chocolate cake, please. _

5. I won't tell your girlfriend. _

2. Listen to a meeting between Susan, a futurologist and Patrick, a business

investor. Tick the future changes she discusses.

1. domestic use of technology

2. longer lives

3. use of the internet

4. people working from home

According to the picture 3, which sentence

is correct?

a) I hope I will be very rich one day.

b) I am rich I can buy everything.

She is not a neat person.

a) picture 4 b) picture 5

She promises she will be neat.

a) picture 4 b) picture 5

80

5. leisure activities and travel

d. Production Questions

1.What will your life, your country and the world be like ten years from now.

Write 5 sentences. You may use the prompts below.

Have

university

education

Spend more

time on the

internet

computers

teach not

teachers

Be a lot of

differences

between young

and old

generations

Go to work in

small planes

1. I think . ….. 3 ……….. 5……………..

2. ………. 4…………

81

D. Materials To Be Used for Marked Structure in Deductive Instruction.

In English a verb can be active or passive:

Active: The starting point of a clause is the

person or thing that did something (the

doer)

Ex. Somebody has stolen my house.

Passive: You can use a different starting

point, not the doer.

My house has been stolen.

1. The passive can be used when the doer is understood, not important or unknown.

 According to the news, they are caught. (we know it is the police who catches them)

 Thousands of people are killed on the roads every year. (we don't know who kills

them)

 Mercedes is made in Germany. (It is not important who makes them)

2. to describe processes – the emphasis is on how something is produced not who does

it.

 Tea is grown on south-facing hillsides, and is harvested twice a year. It is packed

locally.

3. In formal writing, especially impersonal letters which focus on what happens, not

who does it.

 The statement was sent to you at the end of January and you were asked to repay by

the middle of March.

Example: In the two clauses in the sentence below is the doer the same or different?

She opened the door and was seen by one of her neighbors.

 The passive is formed with be + past participle:

Ex.1.Change the active verb forms intopassive forms.

1. does …. 2. has read …..

3. caught … 4. will teach ….

Ex.2. Complete the sentences using the words in the box.

Base – call – design – discover – give – invent – open – play – show - use

1. The London Olympic Stadium ________ by the architectural company in the 1800s.

82

2. The Statue of Liberty _________ to the people of the USA as a present from the

French people

3. Gold ________ first _____ in California in 1848.

4. Lemons and sugar _______to make lemonade.

5. The first public movie _________ to an invited audience in Indiana in 1894.

Ex.3. Write sentences in the present or past passive.

1. what / your new baby /call

___________________________________________?

2. contact lenses / invent / a Czech chemist

___________________________________________.

3. where /olives/grow

___________________________________________.

4. where /the Lord of the Rings film /make

___________________________________________?

5. when /vitamins/discover

___________________________________________?

Ex.4. Rewrite the sentences in the passive.

1. People of all ages wear jeans.

Jeans______________________

2. Microsoft didn't invent laptop computers.

Laptop computers _______________________.

3. Zülfü Livaneli wrote "Serenad"

Serenad _____________________________.

4. People don't use cassette recorders very much today.

Cassette recorders _____________________.

5. Did the same person direct all the Harry Potter films?

Were all _____________________________.

83

E. Materials To Be Used for Marked Structure (PASSIVE) in Inductive

Instruction

A. Read the extracts from an article about a burglary. Then answer "Why was the

burglary unusual?"

Extract 1

Police? I want to report a burglary. Somebody has stolen my house.

"I went to put the key in the door and the door had gone." Mr. McSharry said yesterday.

"Not only that, but somebody had taken the stone around the door too. Inside there was

almost nothing left and I thought there must have been a terrible mistake. It is the worst theft

I have ever seen. There was nothing left but the walls." The police believe an organized gang

carried out the theft. "It is important the police catch them." said Mr. McSharry. "You can

replace a door, but you can't replace a whole house."

Extract 2

Police? I want to report a burglary. My house has been stolen.

"I went to put the key in the door and the door had gone." Mr. McSharry said yesterday.

"Not only that, but the stone around the door had been taken too. Inside there was almost

nothing left and I thought there must have been a terrible mistake. There was nothing left but

the walls." The police believe the theft was carried out by an organized gang. "It is important

the police catch them." said Mr. McSharry. "You can replace a door, but you can't replace a

whole house."

B. Underline any differences you notice.

C. Look at the two headlines. Which headline makes the house more important

than the thief? How does it do this?

D. In the two clauses in the sentence below,

a) is the doer the same or different?

b) In the second clause active or passive?

He walked into the room and was asked to sit down.

E. Read the text below and find out the rules.

The Academy Awards are given out every year to recognize outstanding work of movie

actors, directors, and others who are part of the movie-making industry. These awards, called

Oscars, are presented in a formal ceremony in Hollywood. Several people are nominated in

specific categories, such as Best Movie, Best Actor, Best Music, and Best Costumes. One

nominee is chosen to receive an award in each category. When the awards ceremony started

in 1929, 15 awards were presented and the ceremony was attended by only 250 people.

Tickets cost $10, and anyone who could afford a ticket could attend. Today about two dozen

Oscars are presented. Tickets are no longer sold to the general public; invitations are sent

only to people involved in making the movies and to their guests. Since 1953, Oscar night

84

has been televised and broadcast all over the world. This show is seen by hundreds of

millions of people. Viewers watch as their favorite movie stars arrive looking beautiful and

hopeful.

Examples:

F. Circle the correct option for the underlined sentences.

1. He was a collector as well as an artist. He collected nearly 1000 paintings.

a) active b)passive

2. The first pocket calculator weighed almost a kilogram. Its inventor was invited to

trade fairs all over the world.

3. a) active b)passive

4. Jonathan is starting a new job next week. He is going to be paid much more than

before.

5. a) active b)passive

6. The five prisoners escaped last week, but soon they have been caught.

a) active b)passive

7. Welcome to the conference. After this meeting, you will be given a welcome pack

with details of the talks.

a) active b)passive

85

F. Test for Marked Structure (PASSIVE)

A. Gap Filling, rewriting, traditional type of grammar exercises: Active or passive?

1. Fill in the gaps about Coca Cola with the verb in brackets. Use the active or

passive in a suitable tense.

500 million servings of Coca Cola (consume)(1) _______ worldwide every year. 94 percent

of the world's population (recognize)(2) __________ the Coca Cola trademark. 109 is the

number of years since Coca-Cola (3)_______ (invent). 148 litres(4) ______ (consume) by

the average Brit every year. The average American(5) ______ (drink) 275 litres every year.

195is the number of countries where Coca-Cola(6) ________ (sell). 7 billion servings of

Coca-Cola's products (these include Cherry Coke, Lilt, Fanta, Sprite) (7 ) _______ (consume)

in Britain last year.

The 40-foot Coca Cola bottle in Times Square, New York,(8) _______ (take) seven seconds

to open, float a straw and empty itself. 773 million servings of Coca-Cola products(9) _____

(drink) every day around the world. Nine billion litres of Coca Cola(10) ________ (sell) in

Britain last year.

2. Rewrite the sentences using the words in brackets.

1. Dostoyevski wrote Crime and Punishment.

_____________________________________.

2. A journalist asked me some questions.

I ____________________________________.

3. Alejandro Ledesma produces all of our programmes.

_____________________________________.

4. Alec Guinness played most of the roles in that film.

_____________________________________.

5. Swiss companies make the best chocolate.

_____________________________________.

86

B. Interpretation Questions: Circle the correct option.

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4

Picture 5

According to the Picture 1,

a) Trees are cut for different reasons

every year.

b) People cut trees for different reasons

every year.

According to the Picture 2,

a) Trees are cut for different reasons

every year.

b) People cut trees for different reasons

every year.

According to the Picture 3,

a) The man delivered the packages.

b) The packages were delivered.

According to the Picture 3,

a) The man delivered the packages.

b) The packages were delivered.

Penicillin was discovered by Alexander

Fleming.

a) active b) passive

87

C. Comprehension:

I. Listen to a radio programme about inventions. Were you right? Complete the

sentences with the invention.

a. The ___________ was invented by Josephine Cochrane in 1886.

b. ____________ were invented by Mary Anderson in 1903.

c. ____________were invented by Marion Donovan in 1950.

d. ____________ was invented by Bette Nesmith Graham in 1956.

e. The __________ was invented by Stephanie Kwolek in 1966.

II. Listen again and answer the questions.

a. What happened after Josephine Cochrane's dinner parties?

b. What was the problem with cars in 1903 when it rained or snowed?

c. How many disposable nappies are used every day?

d. What was Bette Nesmith Graham's job?

e. Which of the five inventions do you think was the best?

D. Production: Read the text below. Write 5 advantages or disadvantages of

alternative sentencing.

Make the punishment fit the crime

A man is caught stealing books from a book shop. The judge asks why he did it and the

thief says he loves books. What is the man's punishment? A prison sentence? A big

fine? No. The man is sent to read stories and books to hospital patients. He enjoys the

job and continues to do it for many years! Welcome to the new world of alternative

sentencing programmes. Instead of traditional punishments, criminals get the

punishments that fit their crimes.

What other examples of alternative sentencing are there? Two boys were caught writing

graffiti on a wall. The normal punishment for this is a fine, but in this case, the boys

were told to do community service. They cleaned seventy walls in three weeks.

A shoplifter was caught shoplifting three times in one year in a small town in the USA.

What was her punishment? She was sent to speak to shop owners. She gave advice on

how to stop shoplifters. In one month she spoke to the owners of forty shops. She told

them all about shoplifting and the techniques that shoplifters use. It was a great service

to the community because after that shoplifting almost disappeared from the town.

88

What about more serious crimes? Is alternative sentencing possible for crimes like theft

or credit card fraud? It depends on many things. Who are the criminals? Are they

young? Is this their first crime? Can they change their way of life? One recent story

suggests it is possible.

A thief stole a lot of camping equipment. He loved hiking, mountain climbing and other

sports. Instead of going to prison, he was told to keep all the equipment and to take

groups of schoolchildren and their teachers camping and hiking every weekend. He

loved it, the children loved it, and now it is his job.

89

G. Interview Questions

1. Is grammar teaching necessary?

2. What is the order of importance of grammar among other skills – speaking,

reading, writing, listening?

3. Do you have difficulty learning grammar?

4. Do you think is it possible to learn grammar rules by memorizing?

5. What do you think of the method used in the instruction process?

6. Did you have difficulty doing the test?

90

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Surname, Name: Karaulutaş, Tuğçe

Nationality: Turkish (T.C.)

Date and Place of Birth: 18 April 1990, İzmir

Marital Status: Single

Phone: +90 232

email: tkaraulutas@gmail.com

İzmir Anadolu

Öğretmen Lisesi

2012-2013

2013-2015

2015-present

Izmir Institute of

Technology

İzmir University

Izmir Institute of

Technology

Instructor

Instructor

Instructor

CERTIFICATES

CELTA- 2013- Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults

HOBBIES

Movies, Pilates

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

The role of grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context has been for decades a major issue for students and teachers alike. Researchers have debated whether grammar should be taught in the classroom and students, for their part, have generally looked upon grammar instruction as a necessary evil at best, and an avoidable burden at worst. The paper reports a study undertaken to investigate the difficulties teachers face in teaching grammar to EFL students as well as those faced by students in learning it, in the teachers' perception. The study aimed to find out whether there are significant differences in teachers' perceptions of difficulties in relation to their gender, qualification, teaching experience, and the level they teach in school, thus providing insights into their own and their students' difficulties. Mean scores and t-test were used to interpret the data. The main findings are reported with implications.

• Hossein Nassaji
• Sandra Fotos

With the rise of communicative methodology in the late 1970s, the role of grammar instruction in second language learning was downplayed, and it was even suggested that teaching grammar was not only unhelpful but might actually be detrimental. However, recent research has demonstrated the need for formal instruction for learners to attain high levels of accuracy. This has led to a resurgence of grammar teaching, and its role in second language acquisition has become the focus of much current investigation. In this chapter we briefly review the major developments in the research on the teaching of grammar over the past few decades. This review addresses two main issues: (1) whether grammar teaching makes any difference to language learning; and (2) what kinds of grammar teaching have been suggested to facilitate second language learning. To this end, the chapter examines research on the different ways in which formal instruction can be integrated with communicative activities.

L'A. tente de determiner pourquoi et comment des marques, qu'elles soient phonologiques ou morphologiques, apparaissent dans une langue. L'approche principale adoptee ici consiste a trouver des preuves externes par une analyse diachronique, mais aussi dans les domaines de l'acquisition de la langue maternelle et de la variation socio-culturelle. Le cadre theorique se situe au niveau des theories de la naturalite, de la complexite, de la meta-theorie semiotique et de l'epistemologie du fonctionnalisme. Il est montre dans cet article que plus un systeme sublinguistique devient complexe, plus l'introduction d'une marque devient necessaire.

• Susan Losee Nunan

While studies show the ineffectiveness of direct grammar instruction to produce better writers, high school teacher Susan Losee Nunan finds that explaining grammar rules provides students with tools for building complex thoughts and expressing themselves more elaborately.

Grammar in Context 2 Sixth Edition Pdf Download

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304484506_TEACHING_GRAMMAR_IN_CONTEXT_OR_IN_ISOLATION_FOR_MARKED_AND_UNMARKED_STRUCTURES

Berbagi :