Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:36:55.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GUIDED INDUCTION VERSUS DEDUCTIVE INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEX SPANISH GUSTAR STRUCTURES

An Analysis of Learning Outcomes and Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

Luis Cerezo ,
Allison Caras  and
Ronald P. Leow
Luis Cerezo
Affiliation:
American University
Allison Caras
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Ronald P. Leow*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald P. Leow, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, ICC 411, Georgetown University, 37th and O Streets, NW, Washington, DC, 20057, USA. E-mail: leowr@georgetown.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Meta-analytic research suggests an edge of explicit over implicit instruction for the development of complex L2 grammatical structures, but the jury is still out as to which type of explicit instruction—deductive or inductive, where rules are respectively provided or elicited—proves more effective. Avoiding this dichotomy, accumulating research shows superior results for guided induction, in which teachers help learners co-construct rules by directing their attention to relevant aspects in the input and asking guiding questions. However, no study has jointly investigated the effects of guided induction on both learning outcomes and processes, or whether guided induction can prove effective outside classroom settings where teacher mediation is not possible. In this study, which targeted the complex Spanish gustar structures, 70 English-speaking learners of beginning Spanish received either guided induction via a videogame, deductive instruction in a traditional classroom setting, or no instruction. Learning outcomes were measured via one receptive and two controlled production tasks (oral and written) with old and new items. Results revealed that while both instruction groups improved across time, outperforming the control group, the guided induction group achieved higher learning outcomes on all productive posttests (except immediate oral production) and experienced greater retention. Additionally, the think-aloud protocols of the guided induction group revealed high levels of awareness of the L2 structure and a conspicuous activation of recently learned knowledge, which are posited to have contributed to this group’s superior performance. These findings thus illustrate, quantitatively and qualitatively, the potential of guided induction for the development of complex L2 grammar in online learning environments.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in SLA , June 2016 , pp. 265 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & Cumo-Johanssen, P. (2010). Using a story-based approach to teach grammar. In Shrum, J. L. & Glisan, E. W. (Eds.), Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized foreign language instruction (4th ed., pp. 216–244). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L. (2016). Type and amount of input-based practice in CALI: The revelations of a triangulated research design. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 100–123.Google Scholar
Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 336–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379–410.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.Google Scholar
Dietz, G. (2002). On rule complexity: A structural approach. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2, 263–286.Google Scholar
Elder, C., & Manwaring, D. (2004). The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness, 13, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2016). Salience, Cognition, Language Complexity, and Complex Adaptive Systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 559–582.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2009). Applying corpus linguistics to pedagogy: A critical evaluation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 393–417.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1986). Production vs. comprehension: Differences in underlying competences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 135–164.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288–310.Google Scholar
Hall, C. (1998). Overcoming the grammar deficit: The role of information technology in teaching German grammar to undergraduates. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(1), 41–60.Google Scholar
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708–718.Google Scholar
Housen, A. (2014). Difficulty and complexity of language features and second language instruction. In Chapelle, A. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1443.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 163–175.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2012). Explicit and implicit learning in the L2 classroom: What does the research suggest? The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 2, 117–129.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 Classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Task and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online students: Scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (1997). Spanish gustar psych verbs and the unaccusative se construction: The case of dative experiencers in SLA. In Pérez-Leroux, A. G. & Gass, W. R. (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish: Vol. I. Developing grammars (pp. 189–207). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension. System, 29(3), 357–370.Google Scholar
Py, B. (1999). Enseignement, apprentissage et simplification de la langue. In Billiez, J. (Ed.), De la didactique des langues à la didactique du plurilinguisme (pp. 145–151). Grenoble, France: Presses de l’Université Stendhal.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27–67.Google Scholar
Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 269–292.Google Scholar
Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511–556.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (1999). What form to focus on? Linguistics, language awareness, and the education of L2 teachers. In Lee, J. F. & Valdman, A. (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 3–23). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395–403.Google Scholar
Smart, J. (2014). The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning. ReCALL 26(2), 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toth, P. D., Wagner, E., & Moranski, K. (2013). “Co-constructing” explicit L2 knowledge with high school Spanish learners through guided induction. Applied Linguistics, 34, 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wagner, E., & Toth, P. (2013). Building explicit L2 Spanish knowledge through guided induction in small-group and whole-class interaction. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 89–108). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Cerezo supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Cerezo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 183.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Cerezo supplementary material

Appendix B

Download Cerezo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 222.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Cerezo supplementary material

Appendix C

Download Cerezo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 222.4 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Cerezo supplementary material

Appendix D

Download Cerezo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 222.5 KB