Deductive and inductive approaches to teach language

Two very distinct and opposing instructional approaches are used to assess the learners as well as teachers. They are inductive and deductive approaches. Both approaches can offer certain advantages, but the biggest difference is the role of the teacher. In a deductive classroom, the teacher conducts lessons by introducing and explaining concepts to students, and then expecting students to complete tasks to practice the concepts; this approach is very teacher-centred. Conversely, inductive instruction is a much more student-centred approach and makes use of a strategy known as 'noticing'.  Deductive approach to instruction is a more teacher-centered approach, the teacher gives the students a new concept, explains it, and then allows the students practice using the concept.
An inductive approach to teaching language starts with examples and asks learners to find rules. In the classroom inductive approaches to presenting new language are commonly found in course books, and form part of a general strategy to engage learners in what they learn. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories. Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalisations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach (please note that it's "bottom up" and not "bottoms up" which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.
Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses. Even though a particular study may look like it is purely deductive (e.g., an experiment designed to test the hypothesized effects of some treatment on some outcome), most social research involves both inductive and deductive reasoning processes at some time in the project.
According to Bob Adamson, "The deductive method is often criticised because: a) it teaches grammar in an isolated way; b) little attention is paid to meaning; c) practice is often mechanical." This method can, however, be a viable option in certain situations particularly to deal with   highly motivated students, teaching a particularly difficult concept, or for preparing students to write exams. In contrast with the deductive method, inductive instruction makes use of student "noticing". Instead of explaining a given concept and following this explanation with examples, the teacher presents students with many examples showing how the concept is used. The intent is for students to "notice", by way of the examples, how the concept works.
Using the grammar situation from above, the teacher would present the students with a variety of examples for a given concept without giving any preamble about how the concept is used. As students see how the concept is used, it is hoped that they will notice how the concept is to be used and determine the grammar rule. As a conclusion to the activity, the teacher can ask the students to explain the grammar rule as a final check that they understand the concept.
In the 1990s researchers explored the role that 'noticing' a grammatical construction played in learning that structure. They hypothesized that learners needed to notice a structure in order to hold it in their short- or long-term memory. Although the value of the concept to grammatical acquisition is still under debate 'the overall value of responding promptly to questions and observations of learners cannot be dismissed nor can the role that awareness and consciousness play in the development of meta linguistic knowledge.
As mentioned above in the inductive approach, noticing can be used to teach a grammar concept when students are given the examples, and they come to understand the rule by noticing what those examples have in common. In a more general classroom situation, noticing can be used in many ways: when teachers speak at a more advanced level, they are giving the students constant opportunities to notice the differences between the teacher's speech and theirs. This way each student can become aware of the differences at his own pace. Teachers can provide students with opportunities for noticing simply by putting posters up in the classroom in the target language. As before, when the students are ready to notice the difference, they will. Both deductive and inductive sequences are valuable for teaching concepts, generalisations, processes, and skills. The teacher must decide which to select given the learning outcomes desired and the composition of the class. When choosing, the teacher should consider a number of factors. Students will usually be more involved in the learning experience and tend to participate more actively when an inductive approach is used. If a deductive approach is chosen, it is important to structure the learning experience in order to draw on students' prior experiences and learning, and to provide for their active involvement. Should learning experiences be predictable? The deductive approach is more predictable because the teacher selects the information and the sequence of presentation. What depth of understanding and rate of retention is desired? Students tend to understand and remember more when learning occurs inductively.  The deductive approach is faster and can be an efficient way to teach large numbers of facts and concrete concepts. Instructional methods tend to be either deductive or inductive, although some methods use both.  
As in inductive approach learners discover rules for themselves  they 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.  The mental effort involved ensures a greater degree of cognitive depth.   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. If the problem-solving is done collaboratively, and in the target language, learners get the opportunity for extra language practice.  Working things out for themselves prepares students for greater self-reliance and is therefore conducive to learner autonomy.
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.  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.
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.
Research findings into the relative benefits of deductive and inductive methods have been inconclusive. Short term gains for deductive learning have been found, and there is some evidence to suggest that some kinds of language items are better 'given than 'discovered'. Moreover, when surveyed, most learners tend to prefer deductive presentations of grammar. Nevertheless, once exposed to inductive approaches, there is often less resistance as the learners see the benefits of solving language problems themselves. Finally, the autonomy argument is not easily dismissed: the capacity to discern patterns and regularities in naturally occurring input would seem to be an invaluable tool for self-directed learning; therefore, it might usefully be developed in the classroom.
This inductive teaching method is, without a doubt, an excellent way to teach concepts and generalisations. It is also an effective way to motivate students because this teaching method promotes participation; it has the potential to involve the maximum number of students as possible in the activity. The inductive teaching method is ideal for any subject area, at any grade level. It is sometimes known as inquiry or discovery teaching which involves giving the students examples of language and working with them to come up with grammatical rules. It is a more student centered approach to learning. Alternatively, deductive teaching begins by giving students the rules and working with them to produce language. Here students know what is active voice or passive or direct speech and indirect speech. They hardly can change them from once form into another which is basically necessary to develop their language. This is more teacher centred. The inductive approach is generally accepted to be more efficient in the long run than the deductive approach. Inductive activities are generally more stimulating and require greater student participation. Students get engaged in many meaningful language practices and through these practices they not only get the opportunity to develop their language but also discover the rules how things have happened. Since students are more actively involved in acquiring knowledge rather than just passively sitting and receiving information in the end they end up learning with deeper understanding.

The writer is Programme Manager at BRAC Education,
email:[email protected]