#106, Research Paper: ‘Investigating the Effect of Explicit Grammar Instruction on the Types of Tests in the Acquisition of Relative Clauses’ by Seyed Jalal Abdolmanafi (Rokni)

Abstract

This study meant to investigate the effect of two types of explicit grammar instruction on the two tests of Sentence Combining Test (SCT) and Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT) in the acquisition of relative clause. Two classes were randomly selected and exposed to one of the treatments − explicit-inductive and explicit-deductive − in which they received instruction about English relative clauses. They were administered three similar but not identical tests namely, one pretest, one posttest, and one delayed posttest containing SCT and GJT. The findings revealed that both groups significantly yielded better in short term learning and long term retention on both tests of SCT and GJT from the pretest to the posttest, but the experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group. Further, both groups had higher learning outcomes on the GJT than on the SCT as a result of the treatment.

Key words: implicit, explicit, explicit-inductive, explicit-deductive, relative clauses

Introduction

Continuing in the tradition of more than 2000 years of debate regarding whether grammar should be a primary focus of language instruction, should be eliminated entirely, or should be subordinated to meaning-focused use of the target language (Howatt, 1984), the need for grammar instruction is once again drawing the attention of SLA researchers and teachers (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004). There is now convincing indirect and direct evidence to support the teaching of grammar (Ellis, 2006). Ellis maintains that grammar teaching can help students enhance both their language proficiency and accuracy, facilitate the internalization of the syntactic system of the second or foreign language, and also supplement the development of fluency. Moreover, grammar teaching can contribute to both “acquired knowledge as well as learned knowledge” (ibid). In addition, Celce-Murcia (1991) claims that because these “explicit, direct grammatical elements are gaining significance in teaching communicative abilities and skills” (Li, 1998).

Presenting new rules or patterns about L2 grammar structures, language teachers have commonly used two specific types of grammar teaching methods explicit or implicit. Since in implicit instruction method “no overt mention of the target grammatical point” (Fotos, 2002) is made and it is also dependent on the learners’ access to abundant in-class communicative materials containing the target structures (ibid), recently, many studies have reported the strong evidence showing the superiority of explicit grammar instruction over implicit instructional approaches to grammar in EFL contexts (DeKeyser, 1997). Explicit grammar instruction is an instructional method which involves explanation and practice/experience processing input data (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993). As Fotos (2002) claims learners benefit from explicit grammar instruction prior to implicit-focused activities because it helps them activate their meta­-knowledge about the rules or patterns of the targeted structures, promote their attention to the forms they will encounter, and promote high levels of accuracy in the target structures when communicative opportunities to encounter target forms are abundant.

The instructional approaches to grammar commonly assume that “focusing on linguistic form aids the acquisition of grammatical knowledge” and this assumption has been true for both inductive and deductive methods of L2 grammar teaching (Cadierno-Lopez, 1992). Depending on various situations in their EFL classrooms, EFL teachers have employed one of the two subtypes of explicit instructional approaches to L2 grammar: an explicit-deductive method, in which foreign language teachers apply a general grammatical rule or pattern to particular examples of a grammatical point, and which involves rule explanations at the beginning of the grammar lesson before students engage in language practice (Shaffer, 1989; Green & Hecht, 1992), and an explicit-inductive method, in which students are first exposed to sufficient examples of language use of a grammatical point, generate rules or patterns, directly attend to particular forms, and try to arrive at metalinguistic generalizations on their own (Rosa & O’Neil, 1999; Erlam, 2003; Kim, 2007).

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there was a significant difference between the two different types of pedagogical approaches to L2 grammar in Iranian university students concerning the acquisition of English relative clauses. The results of the present study provided pedagogical implications for L2 grammar acquisition for Iranian high school and university level teachers. This study was an extension as well as a continuance of previous studies by Abraham, 1985; Al-Kharat, 2000; Erlam, 2003; Rosa and O’Neil, 1999; Seliger, 1975; Shaffer, 1989 and Kim, 2007 on the effects of deductive and inductive approaches on grammar performance in EFL classrooms. It also compared, for the first time, the effects explicit-inductive approach on Iranian students’ acquisition of relative clauses against a traditional explicit-deductive approach.

Target Structure

The focus of instruction in study is English relativization. Relativization is chosen as the target of instruction in SLA research. The acquisition of relative clauses by L2 learners has been investigated in order to determine the difficulty order of different types of relative classes (e.g., Gass, 1979; Hamilton, 1994; Izumi, 2003; Sadighi, 1994), as well as to examine the effects of L2 instruction on the target item (e.g., Ammar & Lightbown, 2004; Doughty, 1991; Gass, 1982). The formation of relative clauses appears as a grammar item in second-year high schools in Iran briefly for the first time. Relativization is often considered to be the last hurdle for students to overcome because it involves complex grammatical rules (Yabuki-Soh, 2007). Because L2 learners can carry out basic communication without relative clauses, they tend to avoid using them (e.g., Schachter, 1974). Relativization, however, becomes an important grammatical subsystem for L2 learners when they wish to describe situations or express themselves in depth using complex, multiple-clause sentences as opposed to simple, single-clause sentences.

Relative clause (RC) is a noun-modifying construction resulting in the generation of a higher level noun phrase. Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999) define a RC as “a type of complex postnominal adjectival modifier that is used in both written and spoken English” (p. 571). They further explain “RCs give a means to encode complex adjectival modifiers that are easier to produce than complex attributive structures and that are less wordy than two independent clauses” (p. 571). Therefore, a RC is formed based on the relationship of more than one sentence, where the relationship is the result of ‘embedding’ (p. 572) or the creation of one clause within another higher-order clause.

Due to conflicting debates in the previous research on two different types of L2 grammar instruction methods, the explicit-inductive versus explicit-­deductive instruction and being a teacher for over ten years getting involved with the problem of presenting grammar in an EFL context in Iran, I was determined to investigate the comparative effects of these two instructional types in Iranian university students. One way this can be done is by focusing on one grammatical point − English relative clauses − in order to investigate which instructional approach − explicit­-inductive or explicit-deductive − is more effective for both the accurate production and correct judgment of the grammatical point. This will provide information as to which way is better to help Iranian university students improve grammatical competence for SLA, and to suggest better implications for L2 grammar instruction in the Iranian university as well as high school contexts.

Research Questions

To investigate which instructional method − the explicit-inductive or explicit-deductive instructional approach − is more effective for grammar teaching and learning, this study comes up with the following research questions:

1. “Which instructional − approach explicit-inductive or explicit-deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ short-term learning of sentence combining test (SCT) of relative clauses?”

2. “Which instructional approach − approach explicit-inductive or explicit-deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ long-term learning and retention of sentence combining test (SCT) of relative clauses?”

3. “Which instructional − approach explicit-inductive or explicit-deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ short-term learning of grammaticality judgment test (GJT) of relative clauses?”

4. “Which instructional approach − explicit-inductive or explicit-deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ long-term learning and retention of grammaticality judgment test (GJT) of relative clauses?”

Method

Participants

The participants were 100 Iranian EFL learners studying non-major English at Qaemshahr Azad University, Iran during the fall semester in academic year 2011. Two classes − one experimental group (50 students) and one control group (50 students) − who were homogenized after a proficiency test were formed. They were all freshmen (first-year students) who studied English for at least seven years. In order to control the participants’ gender as a moderator variable, the present researcher invited both genders into this study.

Treatments

During all treatments in this study, the experimental group received an explicit-inductive instruction that advocated by a number of researchers (Al-Kharrat, 2000; Erlam, 2003; Seliger, 1975; Shaffer, 1989; Kim, 2007). In this current method, subjects had no formal and direct instruction during the treatments in which the teacher did not give the experimental class any rule explanations or metalinguistic information about the target structure during all treatments. The essential role of the teacher in the experimental class was giving the experimental class an explicit corrective feedback about the rule explanations or patterns found by the students in order to help students reformulate their rules or patterns of the target structure. In addition, to control the variable of teacher’s behavior and bias in the experiment, the teacher was not used for teaching the lessons in the experiment.

On the other hand, the control group received an explicit­-deductive instruction as the inductive group’s counterpart. This method has been traditionally used as instructional approaches to L2 grammar in the EFL countries (Shaffer, 1989); thus, students in the control group did not have difficulty performing these instructional approaches. The treatment used for the control group was similar to the deductive method designed by a number of researchers (Al-Kharrat, 2000; Erlam, 2003; Seliger, 1975; Shaffer, 1989; Kim, 2007). This method was characterized by the step-by-step rule-first presentation of the language rule before drill and practice (Seliger).

However, the current study involved more guided and modified explicit-inductive instruction, in which students first (1) received ample written example sentences including target structures without any direct instructions; (2) creatively discovered the rule or pattern; (3) formulated the rule or pattern; (4) stated it; and (5) finally verbalized their own explanations or hypotheses. Also, the teacher (1) presented the rule or pattern about the target structure at the end of all activities, and (2) gave explicit corrective feedback to the students at the end of all activities.

Instruments

Proficiency Test

In order to make sure of the homogeneity of the control and experimental groups in terms of English language proficiency, a test of NELSON, series 400B, after being piloted on a similar group of fifteen students, was administered one day before the pretest. It consisted of 50 multiple-choice items in four parts of cloze tests, grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. The time allotted was 40 minutes.

Sentence Combining Test (SCT)

Sentence combination is a typical type of elicitation which researchers use in eliciting relative clauses. Quite a number of previous studies adopted this to collect data concerning relative clauses (Gass, 1979; Izumi, 2003; Hamilton, 1994). In this test, 20 sets of two sentences which could be combined into one sentence were administered.

Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT)

Grammaticality judgment in this study also compensates what sentence combination cannot do to reveal what is lacking in learners’ interlangauge (Gass & Selinker, 2001). The GJT consisted of 24 sentences for each test. Out of 24 items, 12 sentences were ungrammatical, while the rest were grammatical.

Procedure

To achieve the aim of the study, besides the proficiency test which was performed to homogenize the group, the subjects were administrated three similar but not identical tests: one pretest, one posttest, and one delayed posttest. The proficiency test along with the pretest was carried out before the instruction, the posttest was conducted one day after all of the instructional treatments, and the delayed posttest was administered four weeks after all of the instructional treatments. All tests consisted of both the sentence combining test and the grammaticality judgment test.

Results

To assess a significant difference in overall learning outcomes between the experimental (n=50) and control (n=50) groups in the short run, an independent sample t-test was performed to compare the scores of the two tests (pretest and posttest) for the experimental and control groups on the SCT. The results indicated that there was not a significant difference between the two groups in the pretest (t=0.595, p=0.553, p>.05), while there was a significant differential effect between the two groups in the posttest (t=3.625, p<0.05).

Table 1 shows the mean scores of the SCT for the two treatment groups. Both groups increased their scores on the test in the posttest. The mean gain scores for the experimental group and the control group in the short run (posttest-pretest) were 44.26 and 33.63, respectively. This indicates that the experimental group made more improvement than the control group in the short run.

 

Table 1: The Mean Scores of the SCT for the Two Treatment Groups

Tests	Experimental Group (n=50)		Control Group (n=50)
	%	SD	%	SD
Pretest	19.65	2.886	18.10	2.557
Posttest	63.91	3.695	51.73	3.356

 

Moreover, to assess a significant difference in overall learning outcomes between the experimental (n=50) and control (n=50) groups in the long run, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the scores of the three tests (pretest, posttest and delayed posttest) for the experimental and control groups on the SCT. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the pretest (F=0.353, p=0.553, p>0.05), while there was a significant difference between the two groups in the posttest (F=13.139, p<0.05) and delayed posttest (F=9.570, p<0.05).

Table 2 shows the mean scores of the sentence combination test for the two treatment groups. Both groups increased their scores on the SCT in the posttest and delayed posttest. The mean gain scores for the experimental group and the control group in the long run (delayed posttest-pretest) were 41.53 and 31.63, respectively. This implied that the experimental group performed better than the control group in the long run.

 

Table 2: The Mean Scores of the SCT for the Two Treatment Groups

Tests	Experimental Group (n=50)		Control Group (n=50)
	%	SD	%	SD
Pretest	19.65	2.886	18.10	2.557
Posttest	63.91	3.695	51.73	3.356
Delayed Posttest	61.18	4.260	49.73	3.466

 

To assess a significant difference in overall learning outcomes between the experimental (n=50) and control (n=50) groups in the short run, an independent sample t-test was performed to compare the scores of the two tests (pretest and posttest) for the experimental and control groups on the GJT. The results indicated that there was not a significant difference between the two groups in the pretest (t=0.547, p=0.585, p>0.05), while there was a significant differential effect between the two groups in the posttest (t=5.528, p<0.05).

Table 3 shows the mean scores of the grammaticality judgment test for the two treatment groups. Both groups increased their scores on the test in the posttest. The mean gain scores for the experimental group and the control group in the short run (posttest-pretest) were 37.58 and 23, respectively. This indicates that the experimental group made more improvement than the control group in the short run.

 

Table 3: The Mean Scores of the GJT for the Two Treatment Groups

Tests	Experimental Group (n=50)		Control Group (n=50)
	%	SD	%	SD
Pretest	29.63	2.558	28.54	2.313
Posttest	67.21	3.512	51.50	3.628

 

 

Moreover, to assess a significant difference in overall learning outcomes between the experimental (n=50) and control (n=50) groups in the long run, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the scores of the three tests (pretest, posttest and delayed posttest) for the experimental and control groups on the GJT. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the pretest (F=0.300, p=0.585, p>0.05), while there was a significant difference between the two groups in the posttest (F=30.556, p<0.05) and delayed posttest (F=39.331, p<0.05).

Table 4 shows the mean scores of the GJT for the two treatment groups. Both groups increased their scores on the GJT in the posttest and delayed posttest. The mean gain scores for the experimental group and the control group in the long run (delayed posttest-pretest) were 36.83 and 21.75, respectively. This implied that the experimental group performed better than the control group in the long run.

 

Table 4: The Mean Scores of the GJT for the Two Treatment Groups

Tests	Experimental Group (n=50)		Control Group (n=50)
	%	SD	%	SD
Pretest	29.63	2.558	28.54	2.313
Posttest	67.21	3.512	51.50	3.628
Delayed Posttest	66.46	3.003	50.29	3.458

 

 

DISCUSSION

With regard to Research Question 1, “Which instructional approach − inductive or deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ short-term learning of sentence combining test of relative clauses?”, the findings revealed that the participants in the inductive group performed on sentence combining test better than the ones in the deductive group in the short-term period.

With regard to Research Question 2, “Which instructional approach − inductive or deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ long-term learning and retention of sentence combining test of relative clauses?”, the results displayed that the participants in the inductive group performed on sentence combining test better than the ones in the deductive group in the long-term period.

With regard to Research Question 3, “Which instructional approach − inductive or deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ short-term learning of grammaticality judgment test of relative clauses?”, the findings showed that the participants in the inductive group performed on grammaticality judgment test better than the ones in the deductive group in the short-term period.

With regard to Research Question 4, “Which instructional approach − inductive or deductive − will be more effective on Iranian university students’ long-term learning and retention of grammaticality judgment test of relative clauses?”, the results illustrated that the participants in the inductive group performed on grammaticality judgment test better than the ones in the deductive group in the long-term period.

CONCLUSION

In the current study, one major finding shows that both groups significantly increased their overall learning outcomes on both the SCT and the GJT as a result of the treatment. Two different planned, written tests employed in the current study − the SCT and the GJT − are cognitively related to participants’ production and judgment of the target structure − English relative clauses. The purpose of the SCT in this study was to test the participants’ production of the target structure, while the GJT was for the participants’ judgment of the target structure. Thus, the results of the overall learning outcomes on the SCT and the GJT in this study indicate the relationship between the participants’ production and judgment of the target structure. In this study, in both the posttests and delayed posttests as a result of the treatment, both groups had higher overall learning outcomes on both the SCT and the GJT. These results show that participants in both groups increased more on both production and judgment of the target structure as a result of the treatment, and that both aspects of the treatment were effective in the improvement of both participants’ production and judgment of the target structure.

However, according to Izumi (2001), there can be some differences in the effects of the learning between production and judgment by suggesting the link between input and output enhancement. In his study, Izumi found that participants who received both input and output enhancement tasks showed higher gains in both production and judgment. In addition, Izumi has reported that “participants engaged in both input and output enhancement tasks outperformed those exposed only to the same input enhancement tasks for the sole purpose of comprehension in learning gains” (p. 541). Based on Izumi’s findings, the results of this study may also indicate that both aspects of the treatment in this study might be effective on input and output enhancement because both groups had higher overall learning outcomes on both the SCT and the GJT of the target structure − English relative clauses − as a result of the treatment.

Moreover, in this study, another major finding shows that both groups had higher learning outcomes on the GJT than on the SCT as a result of the treatment. These results indicate that both treatments − inductive and deductive instruction − were more effective on the judgment of the target structure than on the production of the target structure as a result of the treatment. In other words, participants of both groups might have experienced more cognitive processing overloaded on the production than on the judgment of the target structure. Thus, no support was found for the hypothesis that the effect of input enhancement was comparable to that of output (Izumi, 2001). In addition, Izumi has suggested that input enhancement alone cannot really induce desired learning effects; hence, grammar tasks should focus more on both input and output enhancement tasks because output tasks can also induce greater noticing of the form than input enhancement alone. As a result, it may be assumed from the results of the current study that participants in both groups achieved greater noticing during the judgment of the target structure than during the production. Similarly, Izumi’s results assume that the successful effect of the treatment can be affected by both input and output enhancement tasks. Consequently, the results of this study may demonstrate that both instructional treatments − inductive and deductive instruction − were more effective on input enhancement than on output enhancement.

Finally, the major results indicate that the experimental group had higher overall learning outcomes on both the SCT and the GJT than the control group as a result of the treatment, but that both groups did not show any significant differences between the pretests of both groups. More specifically, overall learning outcomes on the SCT showed a significant difference between the two groups in the posttests (F=13.139, p<.05) and the delayed posttests (F=9.570, p<.05), while overall outcomes in the pretests of the two classes did not show any significant difference between the two groups (F=0.353, p>.05), and overall learning outcomes on the GJT indicated a significant difference between the two groups in the posttests (F=30.556, p<.05) and delayed posttests (F=39.331, p<.05), while overall outcomes in the pretests (F=0.300, p>.05) and did not show any significant difference between the two groups. These results also indicate that an explicit-inductive approach is more effective on the development of participants’ productive and receptive knowledge than an explicit-deductive approach. In addition, the results demonstrate that the inductive instruction could be closer to both the input and output enhancement tasks than the deductive instruction.

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 689-702.

Al-Kharrat, M.Y. (2000). Deductive & inductive lessons for Saudi EFL freshmen students. Retrieved October 23, 2000 at http://itesli.org/Techniques/Al-Kharrat- Deductive/.

Ammar, A. & Lightbown, P. M. (2004). Teaching marked linguistic structures – more about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In A. Housen & M. Pirerrard (Eds.), investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 167-198). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cadierno-Lopez, T. (1992). Explicit instruction in grammar: A comparison of input­-based and output-based instruction in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Illinois.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 459-480.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

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), 242-260.

Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 155-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327-344.

Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hynes & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL ‘81: Selected papers from the 15th annual conference of teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, (pp. 129-133). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Gass, S.M. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Green, P. & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 168-184.

Hamilton, R.L. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidimensional and maximal? Language Learning, 44, 123-157.

Izumi, S. (2001). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.

Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 258-323.

Kim, J. (2007). A comparative study of the effects of explicit-inductive/cooperative instruction versus explicit-inductive/individualistic on the second language acquisition of English relative clauses in Korean university-level EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University.

Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.

Rosa, E. & O’Neill, M.D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.

Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean adult native speakers. IRAL, 32, 141-153.

Schachter, L. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 27, 205-214.

Seliger, H.W. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. IRAL, 8(1), 1-18.

Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.

VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.

Yabuki-S, N. (2007). Teaching relative clauses in Japanese: Exploring alternative types of instruction and the projection effect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 219-252.