288 SUMMER 2007

The Effects of Deductive

and Guided Inductive Instructional
Approaches on the Learning of
Grammar in the Elementary Foreign
Language College Classroom
Came E. Haight
Emory University

Carol Herron
Emory University

Steven I? Cole
Reseurch Design Associates

Abstract: This study investigates the effectiveness of deductive and guided inductive
approaches for teaching grammar in college French classrooms. .Forty-seven second-
semester French students were taught eight grammatical structures: four with a deduc-
tive instructional approach and four with a guided inductive instructional approach.
A quasiexperimental within-subjects design featuring pre- and posttests and eight
immediate posttreatment quizzes assessed the long- and short-term gains in grammati-
cal knowledge for each condition. Results indicated a significant dqerence between
participants’ mean immediate test scores favoring the guided inductive approach.
Findings of this study also indicated a strong trend infavor of guided induction on the
long-term learning of grammatical structures. The results of this study support using
a guided inductive instructional approach to teach grammar in the beginning-level
foreign language classroom.

Key words: deductive, guided inductive, instructional approaches, PACE, technology

Language: French, relevant to all languages

Carrie E. Haight (MA, University ofpittsburgh) is a graduate student and Instructor

in French and Educational Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.
Carol Herron (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is Professor of French,
Director of the Doctoral Program in French and Educational Studies, and Director of
the Language Center at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.
Steven P Cole (PhD, Emory University) is Director of Research at Research Design
Associates, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia, and New York City, and Adjunct Professor in the
Department of Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOI,. 40, NO. 2 289

Introduction sample sentences. This instructor’s explana-

What is the most effective approach to tion was followed by the students practic-
teaching grammar in a foreign language ing the use of the new form in a contextual-
classroom? Throughout the history of sec- ized activity, entirely in French. Generally,
ond language and foreign language instruc- in a deductive approach the analysis of the
tion, most researchers and instructors have targeted grammar structure precedes prac-
agreed that pedagogical practices make a tice exercises and activities (Erlam, 2003;
difference in language learning (Arteaga, Hammerly, 1975; Larsen-Freeman, 2003).
Herschensohn, Q Gess, 2003; Ask, 2005; Where there appears to be little variety
Ellis, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Lee in deductive approaches, guided induc-
Q Valdman, 2000; Lightbown, 1998; tive instructional approaches in language
Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Long, 1983; classrooms take on many forms and several
Spada Q Lightbown, 1993; VanPatten, strategies coexist. Some rely on the stu-
1996). This discussion of which instruc- dents to induce the rule themselves (Rosa
tional approaches are most effective in & O’Neill, 1999; Shaffer, 1989). Other
foreign language learning in the classroom strategies use guided inductive techniques
environment has taken several forms. One that focus students’ attention on the struc-
of the most frequently debated and unan- ture through a series of leading questions
swered questions on the subject of effec- (Herron & Tomasello, 1992). Adair-Hauck,
tive language learning concerns the issue Donato, and Cumo-Johanssen’s (2005)
of whether students should be taught to PACE model teaches grammar through
focus on the rule before using the structural targeted structures that are embedded natu-
forms (the deductive approach) or to use rally in a presentation text. More specifi-
the grammatical structures in a functional cally, the P in PACE stands for the presen-
practice session before the rule presenta- tation of the structure through a story or
tion (the inductive approach). The aim contextualized examples. The A stands for
of this study was to investigate whether attention; once the material is presented,
various rule explication techniques should the instructor calls learners’ attention to a
precede or follow a focus on the use of particular form through a practice session
grammatical forms. of examples. The C stands for a coconstruc-
This question was studied by com- tion phase in which both the instructor and
paring the effectiveness of a traditional the learners engage in a discussion seeking
deductive instructional approach, which to develop an explanation or generaliza-
focused on form first, and a guided induc- tion about the form in question. Finally,
tive instructional approach, which focused the E stands for extension activity, which
first on a specific function of the language provides the learners with an opportunity
linked to a specific context and meaning. to use the structure once the rule has been
For example, in order to teach French rela- discovered.
tive pronouns using the guided inductive The primary goal of this study was to
approach, students were exposed first to investigate the effectiveness of guided induc-
this grammar point through a contextual- tive and deductive instructional approaches
ized activity, entirely in French, in which on the learning and retention of grammati-
they used relative pronouns to link ideas. cal structures in an elementary-level French
This activity was followed by an instruc- college classroom. In particular, this study
tor and student exchange in French of examined a traditional deductive instruc-
how the grammatical pattern functions. tional approach consisting of presenting
In the deductive approach, the instructor a grammatical rule before practice, and a
first exposed students to relative pronouns guided inductive instructional approach
through an explanation in French of how modeled after the PACE model (Adair-
relative pronouns function with the help of Hauck, Donato, & Cumo-Johanssen, 2005)
290 SUMMER 2007

and the guided inductive model (Herron & Discussions on inductive and deduc-
Tomasello, 1992). The implemented deduc- tive instructional approaches have been
tive and guided inductive approaches are linked to theories of implicit and explic-
described in detail below. it grammar instruction (DeKeyser, 1997;
Ellis, 1994; Norris & Ortega, 2000). An
Review of Previous Research explicit approach to teaching grammar fea-
Despite disagreement among cognitive psy- tures instructor explanations of rules fol-
chologists and linguists on the question lowed by practice exercises (Adair-Hauck,
of how best to learn a second or foreign Donato, Q Cumo-Johanssen, 2005). On
language, many in the fields agree that the other hand, an implicit approach to
some element of formal instruction is nec- grammar instruction refutes the need for
essary for acquisition to occur (Chaudron, any explicit focus on form, as researchers
1988; Long, 1991; Rutherford & Sharwood argue that students can acquire language
Smith, 1988). The history of language naturally if exposed to enough compre-
learning strategies has oscillated between hensible input (Krashen, 1982; Terrell,
form-focused instruction, emphasizing 1977). Adair-Hauck, Donato, and Cumo-
accuracy, and meaning-focused instruction, Johanssen (2005) emphasize that although
emphasizing context and communication. the explicit and implicit camps are dia-
In general, research suggests that focus- metrically opposed, they share a failure
ing on form in a communicative language to acknowledge the role students can play
classroom is a more effective technique for in grammar instruction i.e., collaborating
teaching grammar than focusing on form with the instructor or testing their own
alone or focusing purely on communica- hypotheses while discovering grammatical
tion (Doughty Q Williams, 1998a, 1998b; explanations. Adair-Hauck, Donato, and
Fotos, 1993; Fotos Q Ellis, 1991; Schmidt, Cumo-Johanssen call for a reappraisal of
1990). Related to the issue of how best language instruction that moves beyond
to focus on form in the communicative the dichotomies of explicit vs. implicit
classroom, theorists question how soon grammar instruction and actively involves
language learners should engage in the students and instructors in conversations
actual production of newly explained gram- about grammar as in the guided participa-
matical patterns. (For a discussion on input tory approach of the PACE model.
pqocessing vs. output-based instruction, see Despite a strong theoretical ground-
VanPa ttern, 1996.) work on approaches to teaching and
The general consensus among profes- learning grammar, relatively few research
sionals in the fields of second and foreign studies have been conducted on guided
language learning concerning the debate inductive vs. deductive foreign language
over inductive vs. deductive instructional teaching strategies. Previous studies on
approaches, the focus of this study, points the effectiveness of inductive vs. deduc-
to an approach that falls somewhere in tive instructional approaches produced a
between the two approaches (Adair-Hauck, variety of conflicting results (Abraham,
Donato, & Cumo-Johanssen, 2005; Felder, 1985; Erlam, 2003; Herron Q Tomasello,
1995; Hammerly, 1975; Larsen-Freeman, 1992; Robinson, 1996; Rosa Q ONeill,
2003; Shaffer, 1989). Today, an abundance 1999; Seliger, 1975; Shaffer, 1989). In
of theoretical literature exists concerning addition to mixed results concerning the
the cognitive constructs of both inductive effectiveness of one approach over the
and deductive instructional approaches in other, each study has used slightly differ-
foreign language learning and instruction ent inductive strategies. In some studies,
(DeKeyser, 1998; Doughty Q Williams, the inductive approach entailed students
1998a; Robinson, 2001). completing sentences after practice activi-
ties with no explicit attention given to the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 40, NO. 2 291

rule (Abraham, 1985;Herron & Tomasello, racy in particular, the issues surrounding
1992). Other studies asked students to ver- the question of how best to teach gram-
balize the rule after the presentation and mar in a foreign language classroom have
practice (Shaffer, 1989), or asked students increased in importance. Yet classroom
to look for the rule during and after presen- research exploring the benefits of induc-
tation and practice (Rosa & O’Neill, 1999). tive and deductive grammatical instruction
One study (Seliger, 1975) gave students remains limited. The focus of this study was
the rule at the end of the targeted structure to compare two specific pedagogical strate-
lesson. More recently, Erlam (2003) used gies for teaching grammar through guided
an inductive approach that lacked explicit induction or deduction in the foreign lan-
attention, elicitation, or explanation of the guage classroom. While some researchers
grammatical rule in question. Other fea- (Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Lee & VanPatten,
tures differentiating these previous studies 1995) stress the benefits of teaching foreign
include the nature of the body of par- language grammar with less of a focus on
ticipants and the number of grammatical rules and extensive explanations, teaching
structures used to investigate the effective- strategies appear not to have evolved in
ness of the two approaches. Two of the terms of how grammar is taught. Lee and
studies used high school students as their VanPatten (1995) argue that although lan-
primary participants (Erlam, 2003; Shaffer, guage classrooms are becoming more com-
1989), while the remaining studies focused municative, instructors still are insisting on
on college students. Robinson’s (1996) and teaching grammar explicitly. With many
Erlam’s (2003) studies measured inductive textbooks and instructors still presenting
and deductive instructional approaches on foreign language grammar explanations
only one structure, whereas the other stud- deductively, we framed this study around
ies used several grammatical structures to the following research questions:
test their hypotheses. 1. Which instructional approach, deduc-
The diversity of research design with tive or guided inductive, will be more
regard to scope, treatment conditions, par- effective on elementary French stu-
ticipants, and proficiency levels undoubt- dents’ (FR 102) short-term learning of
edly contributed to the variations observed grammatical structures?
in the results of these studies. Three studies 2. Which instructional approach, deductive
reported no significant differences between or guided inductive, will be more effective
the two instructional approaches (Abraham, on FR 102 students’ long-term learning
1985; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999; Shaffer, 1989). and retention of grammatical structures
Edam (2003), Robinson (1996), and over the course of the semester?
Seliger (1975) reported that the deductive
approach was more effective. Herron and Methodology
Tomasello (1992) concluded that the guid- Definition of Terns
ed inductive approach was the most effec- The deductive approach featured in this
tive in the learning and retention of gram- investigation focused on the explicit expla-
matical structures. Although no significant nation of grammatical structures and rules.
differences between the two approaches Deductive instruction focused on form
were found in the Shaffer (1989) study, the before meaning. The deductive instruc-
inductive condition did indicate positive tional strategies for each targeted structure
benefits to student learning. began with the analysis of the targeted
grammatical structure. The instructor stat-
Statement of the Problem ed the rule and then illustrated it with
Since the adoption of communicative lan- sample sentences written on the board.
guage teaching with a stress on developing This rule statement and brief illustration
students’ proficiency, and students’ accu- were followed by the students using the
212 SUMMER 2007

structure in an oral practice session. The in question after an oral contextualized

practice activity, presented via Powerpoint, practice session. Similar to the PACE model’s
consisted of 10 additional contextualized coconstruction stage, the instructor asked
examples of the targeted structure in use. the students leading questions about the use
Student responses during the oral practice of the structure in the contextualized oral
activity were done chorally. Students did examples they had practiced. The students,
not take notes during the deductive presen- in turn, chorally verbalized their responses,
tation. (See Appendix A for a detailed script received feedback from the instructor, and
of a deductive lesson plan.) acquired their own meaning of the gram-
The guided inductive approach in matical structure’s use and form.
this study began with the students using The guided inductive approach tested
the targeted grammatical structure in the in this study was modeled after the PACE
same oral practice session that the students model. However, it is important to distin-
had completed in the deductive condition. guish between the two models, in particular
Once again, this practice session, cued via the coconstruction phase of the PACE model
Powerpoint, consisted of 10 contextualized vs. the coconstruction method used in this
examples of the targeted structure. As in study’s guided induction model. In the
the deductive condition, student responses guided inductive approach, students were
during the oral contextualized activity were asked to answer scripted questions about
done chorally. However, the analysis of the the grammatical pattern and to articulate
structure followed rather than preceded this the pattern in fill-in-the-blank sentences. It
oral practice session. Unlike the deductive was necessary to script, prior to the onset of
condition, at no point in the guided induc- the study, the question and answer exchang-
tive condition did the participants receive es between the instructor and students so
explicit explanation of the rule from the that all students in the guided inductive
instructor. Instead, learners, with instruc- condition would be exposed to the same
tor assistance, analyzed the same sample coconstruction of the targeted grammar
sentences featured in the deductive condi- point. These scripted question and answer
tion rule illustration. This time, however, exchanges about grammar are in line with
the model sentences contained blanks for the principles of collaboration in the PACE
the missing targeted structure. The instruc- model. Both the PACE model and the guided
tor asked the students a series of guiding inductive model stress the importance of
questions that led them to fill in the blanks the instructor using leading questions to
in each sample sentence with the correct guide learners to discover grammatical pat-
missing targeted structure. Through the terns. However, in the PACE model, during
series of guiding questions, the students the coconstruction phase, instructors some-
and instructor collaborated and interacted times will adapt their questioning based on
to coconstruct the grammatical rule togeth- the students’ understanding of the pattern
er. Students did not take notes during the in question. This improvised questioning
guided inductive instruction. based on learners’ understanding, not pos-
The guided inductive approach used sible within the empirical constraints of
in this study combined characteristics of the current study, marks a primary differ-
both the guided inductive model (Herron ence between this study’s guided inductive
& Tomasello, 1992) and the PACE model approach and that used in the PACE model.
(Adair-Hauck, Donato, Q Cumo-Johanssen, Both the inductive PACE model and
2005). As in the Herron and Tomasello the guided induction model are supported
model for teaching grammar inductively, by sociocultural and constructivist theo-
the participants in this study were asked ries of learning (Lantolf, 2000; Reagan &
to orally complete fill-in-the-blank sample Osborn, 2002; Stevick, 1996; Vygotsky,
sentences using the grammatical structure 1978, 1986) that argue in favor of indi-
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS . VOI,. 40, NO. 2 293

vidual processing of stimuli, or in our case The participants were assigned to one
knowledge, in order for the development of of the four course sections through the col-
cognitive structures to occur. The instructor lege registrar system. All of the participants
and the learner construct an understanding were native or near-native English speakers
of a linguistic structure together through and nonnative speakers of French. Although
a series of student-instructor interactions. this sample was not randomly selected, the
Individual learners actively build their own four groups were counterbalanced by the
linguistic system and skills, thereby playing empirical within-subjects design described
an active role in the learning process. (See below. The instructors for the four sections
Appendix B for a detailed script of a guided were all graduate teaching assistants at the
inductive lesson plan.) same institution as the participants and
were all enrolled in their second year of a
Participants and Setting PhD program in either French Literature or
The participants in this study were 47 col- French and Educational Studies.
lege students enrolled in four sections of a
second-semester French course (FR 102) General Classroom Procedures
at a medium-sized southern private liberal The research procedures for this investiga-
arts college. Testing and procedures related tion were integrated into the participants’
to the study took place during partici- daily classroom activities. All four of the
pants’ regularly scheduled class time. Initial FR 102 sections met four times a week. All
data were collected from 68 participants. four sections had the same multimedia cur-
However, prior to conducting statistical riculum, French in Action (Capretz, 1994),
analyses on the data, a decision was made a video-based program for teaching French
to include in the analyses only the par- in which students were exposed to native
ticipants who met the following criteria: French speakers interacting in everyday
(1) they were present for at least three treat- authentic contexts. Although all the French
ment sessions in each condition (six total), grammar explanations occur in the stu-
(2) they had immediate test scores on at dents’ workbook rather than in a typical
least six of the eight structures (three in textbook-based program, instructors gener-
each condition), and (3) they were present ally were free to present grammar points
for both the grammar pretest and posttest. either inductively or deductively in class.
This decision was made so that all partici- Each week the course focused on a
pants included in the analyses had an ade- different video segment that combined ele-
quate amount of valid data. Forty-seven of ments of French language and culture. The
the 68 students met these criteria and their FR 102 course focused on chapters 16 to
scores were retained for data analysis. Of 31. Students spent approximately 4 hours
the 47 participants, 21 had immediate test in class and an estimated 1.5 hours outside
scores for all eight structures, while 21 had of class each week working on workbook
test scores for seven structures, and 5 par- and audio materials that were contextu-
ticipants had test scores for six structures. alized to the in-class video story. Daily
Of the 47 student participants, 18 classroom activities typically included the
were freshmen (38%),13 were sophomores viewing and discussion of the weekly video
(28%), 9 were juniors (19%), 6 were seniors with the guidance of the instructor. During
(13%), and 1 participant (2%) did not or after the viewing of the video, instruc-
report this information. Thirty-one (66%) tor checked students’ comprehension of
of the student participants were female and the video text and new vocabulary through
14 (30%) were male; 2 participants did not guiding questions or individual, pair, or
report their gender. On average, the body group activities. After working with the
of student participants reported having 1.5 video, instructors generally presented new
years of previous French study. vocabulary or new grammar points to the
234 SUMMER 2007

students through contextualized presen- ence to the scripted lesson plan, that could
tations, oral and written, that reinforced have confounded the effect of the different
meaning through the use of visuals, syn- treatments. During these observations, the
onyms, examples, contextual clues, word principal investigator assumed the role of
families, etc. Technologically enhanced a nonparticipant observer and focused on
media (e.g., video, the Internet, PowerPoint each instructor’s adherence to the lesson
presentations), illustrating authentic cul- plan script as well as on classroom activities
tural materials and grammar in use, played following the grammar lesson.
a central role in the daily classroom activi-
ties of all four sections. On most Fridays, Target Structures
students would have a quiz on the material Eight grammatical structures in French
covered during the week. were chosen from the students’ curriculum.
In order to test the effectiveness of the The first of the eight structures tested in
two teaching approaches on the learning this study was assigned to two of the four
and retention of French grammar, stu- sections to be taught deductively, while the
dent participants in this study were taught remaining two sections were taught the
over the course of one semester eight new first grammatical structure with the guided
grammatical structures embedded in their inductive approach. The following week,
weekly video lessons. The grammatical the two groups (each group consisting of
structures chosen for this study followed two sections) were taught the second gram-
the chronology of the course textbook matical structure in the opposite teaching
and were generally taught in one-week instructional approach from week one. The
intervals. The chosen structures also lent instructors for the four sections continued
themselves to an oral contextualized activ- to alternate between the two instructional
ity through which the linguistic pattern conditions for the remaining structures.
could be clearly illustrated in a practice ses- The within-subjects design process of alter-
sion of 10 examples. For each of the eight nating the instructional approach for each
structures, a deductive or a guided induc- structure and for each group allowed for
tive lesson plan, presentation, and script equal representation of each participant
designed by the researchers were given to and each instructor in each condition. It is
the instructors prior to the teaching of the important to point out that the comparison
targeted structure. (See Appendix C for a of the two instructional approaches for any
list of the grammatical concepts and rules.) one structure is not wholly valid because
Instructors were asked to follow the lesson its teaching in the two conditions was done
plan script for each targeted grammatical by different instructors. The appropriate
structure while presenting the given lesson. comparisons can be made only across all
Only one grammatical structure was pre- structures taking advantage of the counter-
sented per class period. Each presentation balanced within-subjects design. A list of
of a targeted structure lasted approximately the grammatical structures and the coun-
10 minutes. After each grammatical form terbalanced design for the instructional
had been presented, instructors were asked approaches used to teach each structure are
to administer and collect the quiz instru- found in Table 1.
ments and return them for scoring to the
primary investigator. (See Appendix D for Instrumentation and Testing
an example of an immediate quiz.) Procedures
Throughout the course of the semester, The two different instructional approaches
the primary investigator conducted two described above were used to teach the cho-
classroom observations for each instructor sen eight grammatical structures. The inves-
in order to assess possible teacher-effect tigators selected these important structures
variables, such as the instructors’ adher- from the course curriculum and taught
~ FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 40, NO. 2 295

them in the order in which they occurred in Background Questionnaire

the curriculum. The researchers also chose At the beginning of the semester, students
structures that appeared to lend themselves were asked to complete a background ques-
equally well to both guided inductive and tionnaire in order to assess previous language
deductive teaching strategies. The analyses study and other demographic information
of this investigation were based on the fol- that might be pertinent to this investigation
lowing instruments, all designed by the and its findings (see Appendix E).
principal investigator
Grammar Pretest
The grammar pretest was administered to
participants at the beginning of the semes-
ter, prior to the treatment phase, in order to
assess the comparability of grammar knowl-
edge between the four sections. Each item
on the grammar pretest consisted of a stem
Class and five multiple-choice responses focus-
Structure Sections ing on one of the eight grammatical struc-
tures taught during the treatment phase.
Sections
1. adverbial A and B The grammar test contained 16 items and
pronoun en possible test scores ranged from 0 to 16
[some, any] Sections
C and D points. The grammar pretest featured two
items testing each of the eight grammatical
Section patterns that were to be taught in the two
2. adverbial A and B
pronoun y treatment conditions (see Appendix F).
[there] Sections
C and D
Grammar Posttest
Sections The grammar posttest was identical to
3 . indirect A and B
object the grammar pretest. At the end of the
pronouns Sections semester, 14 weeks after the pretest, the
C and D grammar posttest was administered to
Sections the participants to measure the long-term
4. imperative + A and B learning of the grammatical structures as
pronouns Sections well as the effectiveness of each presenta-
C and D tional approach. Even though at the time
5. verb with d + Sections of the pretest, the pretest items were not
indirect object A and B categorized as having been taught through
plaire [to either the guided inductive or deductive
please/ Sections
C and D approach, at the end of the semester, the
be pleasing to]
investigators were able to associate indi-
Section vidual items on the grammar posttest to
6. relative A and B
the students according to the condition in
pronouns Sections which they had originally learned the struc-
C and D ture, thus making the long-term analysis
Sections possible (see Appendix F).
7. demonstra- A and B
tive pronouns Sections Immediate Quizzes
C and D A quiz was administered to the students
8. partitive Sections following the instruction of each gram-
articles A and B matical structure. There were a total of
eight quizzes, one for each of the eight
296 SUMMER 2007

targeted grammatical structures. The same conditions are presented in Table 3. Once
quiz was used for both instructional treat- again, it is important to emphasize that the
ments. Each of the quizzes contained four comparison in the case of any one structure
fill-in-the-blank items testing the targeted is not wholly valid because its teaching
grammatical structure presented in class, in the two conditions was done by differ-
and each took approximately 5 minutes to ent instructors. For purposes of statistical
complete. Possible quiz scores ranged from analyses, each student received one score
0 to 4 points (see Appendix D). for each condition. One score was the
percent correct in the deductive condition
Results and the other score represented the percent
Preliminary Analyses correct in the guided inductive condition.
In order to assess the possible variability For example, if a student was present for
in grammar knowledge between the four all four grammar lessons in the deductive
participating class sections of FR 102, a condition, then a student’s percent correct
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was score was calculated out of a total score of
conducted to compare participants’ mean 16 points (four quizzes times four points
total pretest percentage scores before the per quiz). If a student missed class on the
beginning of the treatment period. The day the structure was introduced and tested
results of this comparison indicated that in the deductive condition, that structure
there were no statistically significant dif- was not counted and the student’s percent
ferences for student performance on the correct score was calculated out of a total
grammar pretest, F (3, 43) = .167,p = .918 score of 12 points (three quizzes times
(see Table 2). four points per quiz). Student scores in the
guided inductive condition were calculated
Tests of Research Questions in the same manner. Immediate quiz scores
Question 1: Which instructional were calculated at the end of the treatment
approach, deductive or guided inductive, phase in order to assess whether the deduc-
will be more effective on elementary tive or the guided inductive instructional
French students’ (FR 102) short-term approach was more effective on the short-
learning of grammatical structures? term learning of French grammatical struc-
In order to assess the effect of the deduc- tures. This analysis indicated that the mean
tive vs. the guided inductive approach on grammar quiz scores for students’ perfor-
participants’ short-term learning of gram- mance in the guided inductive instructional
matical structures, a paired samples t test condition were significantly greater than
was conducted on total guided inductive the mean scores in the deductive condi-
and deductive quiz scores for each par- tion, t (46) = 2.32, p = .025,q2= .lo5 (see
ticipant. Mean proportions for the two Table 3).

by Section ( N = 47)

Section

Immediate 85.77 91.59

Quiz Score (16.00) (11.10)
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 40, NO. 2 297

Question 2 : Which instructional the deductive approach. Table 4 presents the

approach, deductive or guided induc- total grammar pretest and posttest means
tive, will be more effective on FR 102 and Table 5 presents the grammar posttest
students’ long-term learning and reten- means for each instructional condition.
tion of grammatical structures over the
course of the semester? Discussion
In order to examine the effect of the two teach- Limitations and Strengths
ing approaches (guided inductive and deduc- Limitations are inherent in all studies
tive) on the long-term learning of grammati- involving classroom research. The findings
cal structures, a two (deductive, inductive) x from this study may not be generalizable to
two (deductive, guided inductive) repeated populations of second-semester French stu-
measures ANOVA was conducted. The results dents outside of the academic setting where
indicated a significant main effect for time, this study took place. Additionally, in terms
F (1, 46) = 96.41, p = ,000, qz = .677, indi- of assessing language skills, this study
cating an overall improvement in grammar focused only on the effects of the deduc-
knowledge over the course of the semes- tive and guided inductive instructional
ter. The results also indicated a significant approaches on written grammar skills.
main effect for method, F (1, 46) = 4.32, Researchers did not collect data concerning
p = ,043, q2 = ,086. The time x meth- the students’ oral production of the target-
od interaction, F (1, 46) = 3.97, p = .05, ed structures during regular class time. It
q2= ,080, indicated a strong trend favoring is necessary to note as well that this study’s
a greater increase in scores for students in findings pertain only to one particular level
the guided inductive treatment condition of French students. Future research will
than in the deductive condition. The gram- need to be conducted to assess not only the
mar pretest-to-posttest score increases were method of delivery and a greater number of
significant for both the guided inductive, structures, but also the effectiveness of vari-
t (46) = -8.77, p = ,000, q2 = ,626, and the ous instructional ,approaches on the learn-
deductive conditions, t (46) = -5.00, p = ing and retention of grammatical structures
,000, q2 = ,438; however, the percentage in multiple language learning populations.
score increase for the guided inductive con- It should be emphasized that only one
dition (27.94 points) was greater than the type of deductive approach and one type
increase for the deductive condition (19.47 of inductive approach were tested in this
points). Overall the results of this analysis study. Future work on this topic may bene-
support the notion that the guided induc- fit from looking at the effectiveness of more
tive instructional approach has significant than one inductive instructional approach,
positive effects on the long-term learning of as well as examining the effects of such
grammatical structures when compared to strategies on other foreign language skills.

and Posttest Means (and

Standard Deviations) (N= 47)

Total Score 37.50 61.34

(15.31) (16.98)
278 SUMMER 2002

Finally, the possibility of crossover effects, approaches support and are consistent with
or rather changes in the performance of the results of the short-term learning analy-
the participants due to their repeated expo- ses in favor of a guided inductive strategy.
sure to the two treatment conditions, also Several pedagogical and theoretical
may limit the significance of the findings. frameworks support the effect of the guided
However, the within-subjects design of this inductive instructional approach illustrated
study minimizes the possibility of carry- by these findings. This study’s findings
over effects because structures generally align with cognitive theories of learning
were taught one week apart. In addition, that view learning as active development
the alternation of instructional approaches involving a process of problem solving
between the four sections allowed for equal and engagement on the part of the learner.
representation of each participant and each Such active engagement in language learn-
instructor in each condition, counterbal- ing is necessary for the construction of the
ancing practice effects. language itself through the processing of
Additional strengths of this study and linguistic data and the testing of hypotheses
its design included the highly detailed, clear, (Herron & Tomasello, 1992; Tomasello,
and uniform lesson plans and scripts. All of 2003).
the treatment procedures were designed as In addition, the results of this study
an integral part of typical foreign language favor guided inductive instructional
classroom activities in order to avoid dis- approaches that support learning through
ruption of the language learning process. hypothesis testing (Bley-Vroman, 1986).
Additionally, as the findings demonstrate, Learners are encouraged to take in and
all students participating in this study illus- transform input, form and test hypotheses,
trated overall improvement in their French and draw conclusions based on the input
grammar knowledge over the course of and their hypotheses. Moreover, contem-
the study This study’s findings contribute porary constructivist theories of learning
another chapter to the longstanding debate (Fosnot, 1996; Reagan & Osborn, 2002)
over the deductive vs. inductive instruc- call for an approach to teaching and learn-
tional approach in foreign language peda- ing that incorporates active engagement
gogy. The results of the research questions on the part of the student rather than the
present statistically significant evidence in learning of facts and techniques, strate-
favor of the effects of the guided inductive gies that are often linked to the deduc-
instructional approach over the deductive tive approach. Such theories on education
instructional approach on the short-term highlight intuition, or rather the mental
learning of the eight grammatical struc- process of understanding formulae and
tures targeted, and show a positive trend structures without learning them through
in favor of the effects of the guided induc- a detailed step-by-step process, as a critical
tive approach over the deductive approach feature of creating knowledge and thinking
on the long-term learning of these same productively.
structures. Furthermore, the language learner’s
testing of linguistic hypotheses on mature
The Learning of Fvmch Grarnrnuv speakers of the language that character-
The results of the analyses testing the short- izes a guided inductive approach reinforces
term effectiveness of the two instructional Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) work on social
approaches indicate that the guided induc- cognition and interaction. Vygotsky attri-
tive approach had a significantly great- butes the development of cognitive skills
er effect on FR 102 students’ immediate to a dialectical process between the learner
learning of grammar than the deductive and an instructor. The learner acquires
approach. The results of the analyses test- knowledge with the guidance of an instruc-
ing the long-term effectiveness of the two tor through a problem-solving process. A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS . VOL. 40, N O . 2 211

learner’s zone of proximal development, Conclusion

or rather the gap between the student’s This study was built on prior research exam-
capabilities and the learning task at hand, ining inductive and deductive strategies in
is bridged by the guidance of the instruc- second language and foreign language class-
tor. The guided questions, the verbalization rooms, and pushed the debate a step further
of question responses by the students, and by incorporating an instructional approach
their verbalization of the grammatical rule enhanced by the technological presentation
itself featured in this study’s guided induc- features of PowerPoint. Perhaps the results
tive instructional approach parallels this of this study-supporting the benefits of
process of expert-novice interaction. guided induction and the active role of
The findings from this study support language learners in the coconstruction
learning a foreign language through contex- of meaning and form-will help shift the
tualized input. The instructional approach- focus of grammar instruction away from
es featured in this study exposed students the commonly experienced deductive pre-
to language in context via meaningful sentations of grammatical structures in
Powerpoint presentations that focused on both classrooms and textbooks. We hope
contemporary, culturally relevant material. the findings will inspire continued class-
The same contextualized practice exer- room research on how best to teach gram-
cises could be presented without the aid mar in a proficiency-oriented, standards-
of Powerpoint in classrooms where tech- based foreign language classroom.
nologically enhanced learning tools and
materials are not available. However, a dis- References
tinct advantage of PowerPoint is that it not Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence-
only allows language instructors to build dependence and the teaching of grammar.
instructional materials featuring practical, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 689-702.
current, and meaningful content, but it Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & Cumo-
also serves as a medium that can be stored Johanssen, €? (2005). Using a story-based
digitally on a Web site such as Blackboard, approach to teach grammar. In J. L. Shrum
thus enabling instructors to share creative & E. W. Glisan (Eds.), Teacher’s handbook:
inductive exercises or adapt existing pre- Contextualized language instruction, 3rd ed.
(pp.189-213). Boston: Thomson Heinle.
sentations to their liking or their needs.
The creation of guided inductive lessons Arteaga, D., Herschensohn, J., & Gess, R.
with or without the use of technology takes (2003). Focusing on phonology to teach mor-
phological form in French. Modern Language
time and innovation; however, based on Journal, 87, 58-70.
this study’s findings, this extra time and
Aski, J. M. (2005). Alternatives to mechanical
creativity in lesson planning seems worth- drills for the early stages of language prac-
while. With the continued creation, use, tice in foreign language textbooks. Foreign
and communal storage of guided inductive Language Annals, 38(3), 333-343.
Powerpoint presentations, it may no longer Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in
be necessary for each instructor (particu- second language acquisition theory. Language
larly those inclined to use deductive tech- Learning, 36, 353-376.
niques or reluctant to use technology in the Capretz, I? J. (1994). French in action, 2nd ed.
classroom) to write from scratch guided New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
induction or PACE activities. Guided induc- Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language class-
tive PowerPoint presentations also may be room research on teaching and learning. New
used as models in training teachers to teach York Cambridge University Press.
grammar through guided induction. DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit
rule learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 195-222.
300 SUMMER 2007

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching lan-

Cognitive perspectives on learning and guage: From grammar to grammaring. Boston:
practicing second language grammar. In C. Heinle & Heinle.
Doughty & J . Williams (Eds.), Focus onform Lee, J. E, & Valdman, A. (2000). Form and
in classroom second language acquisition (pp. meaning: Multiple perspectives. Boston: Heinle
42-63). New York: Cambridge University
& Heinle.
Press.
Lee, J. E, & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998a.). communicative language teaching happen. New
Focus on form in classroom second language York: McGraw-Hill.
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University
Press. Lightbown, F! (1998). The importance of
timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998b). Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In second language acquisition (pp. 177-1961,
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on New York: Cambridge University Press.
form in classroom second language acquisi-
tion (pp.197-261). New York: Cambridge Lightbown, E, & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on
University Press. form and corrective feedback in communi-
cative language teaching: Effects on second
Ellis, N. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit learn- language learning. Studies in Second Language
ing of languages. London: Academic Press/ Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Harcourt Brace.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language instruction make a difference? A review of the
acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford, research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
UK: Blackwell.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive feature in language teaching methodology. In
and inductive instruction on the acquisition K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.),
of direct object pronouns in French as a sec- Foreign language research in cross-cultural per-
ond language. Modem Language Journal, 87, spective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
242-260.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Does type of
Felder, R. M. (1995). Learning and teaching instruction make a difference? Substantive
styles in foreign and second language educa- findings from a meta-analytic review. Language
tion. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 21-31. Learning, 51, 157-213.
Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Ollivier, J. (1993). Grammaire francaise
perspectives, and practice. New York: Teacher's [French grammar], 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle &I
College Press. Heinle.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and Reagan, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (2002). The
noticing through focus on form: Grammar foreign language educator in society: Toward
task performance versus formal instruction. a critical pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407. Erlbaum.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communication Robinson, I? (1996). Learning simple and
about grammar: A task-based approach. complex rules under implicit, incidental,
TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628. rule-search conditions, and instructed condi-
Hammerly, H. (1975). The deductiodinduc- tions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
tion controversy. Modem Language Journal, 18, 27-67.
59, 15-18. Robinson, E (Ed.). (2001). Cognition and
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring second language instruction. Cambridge, UK:
grammatical structures by guided induction. Cambridge University Press.
French Review, 65, 708-718. Rosa, R., & ONeill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness,
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in
in second language acquisition. New York: Second Language Acquisition, 21, 51 1-556.
Pergamon Press. Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.).
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory (1988). Grammar and second language teach-
and second language learning. Oxford, UK: ing. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford University Press.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOI,. 40, N O . 2 301

Schmidt, R. W (1990). The role of conscious- Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to

ness in second language learning. Applied second-language acquisition and learning.
Linguistics, 1 1 , 129-158. Modern LanguageJoumal, 61, 325-337.
Seliger, H. W (1975). Inductive method and Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Ian-
deductive method in language teaching: A re- guage: A usage-based theory of language acqui-
examination. International Review of Applied sition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 13, 1-18. Press.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of induc- VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and
tive and deductive approaches to teaching grammar instruction: Theory and research.
foreign languages. ~ o h k mLanguage Journal, Nonvood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
73, 395-403. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
Spada,N., & Lightbown, P (1993). Instruction development of higher psychological processes.
and the development of questions in the Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language.
Acquisition, 15, 205-221. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stevick, E. (1996). Memory, meaning, 0meth-
od, 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

APPENDIX A

FR 102 Deductive Lesson Plan

Deductive Lesson Plan for the PARTITIVE

(Scripted text is presented in bold.)

Context: La nourriture! [Food !I

Teacher: Aujourdhui nous allons apprendre a parler de la nourriture.
[Today we are going to learn how to talk about food.]

I. RULE
Teacher: En franqais nous utilisons l’article partitif (du, de la, de l’, des) devant des
noms de choses qu’on ne peut pas compter pour indiquer une partie ou une quantite
indeterminee des choses. Regardons quelques exemples.
[In French the partitive article (du, de la, de l’, des [some/any]) is used before nouns
that one cannot count to indicate a part of or an undetermined quantity of something.
Let’s look at a few examples.]

11. INTRODUCTION AND SAMPLE SENTENCES ILLUSTRATING THE RULE

***Please write numbered sentences below on board***
Teacher : Dans la video Robert et Mireille vont chez Madame Courtois pour le diner.
[In the video, Robert and Mireille go to Madame Courtois’ house for dinner.]

1. Comme entree ils prennent fisalade.

[For a starter they have some salad.]
2. Comme plat principal ils prennent &I poulet.
[For the main course they have some chicken.]
3. Comme boisson ils prennent m e a u minerale.
[For a beverage they have some mineral water.]
302 SUMMER 2007

111. PRACTICE SESSION CUED BY POWERPOINT

Teacher : Imaginez que nous sommes au bistro. Dites ce que nous prenons.
[Imagine that we are at the bistro. Say what we (will) have.]

Slide # 1 Teacher: Nous aimons le Coca-cola. [We like Coke.]

Students: Alors, nous prenons du Coca-Cola. (Repetez)
[Then we (will) have Coke. (Repeat)]

Slide # 2 Teacher: Nous aimons la pizza. [We like pizza.]

Students: Alors, nous prenons de la pizza. (Repetez)
[Then we will have pizza.(Repeat)]

DRILL: REPEAT PATTERN

( 3 for each article) Follow model slide format for examples.

Teacher: Nous aimons . . .[We like . . .I

Students: Alors, nous prenons . . .[Then we will have . . .I

Slide # 3 le gazpacho [gazpacho]

Slide # 4 le fromage [cheese]
Slide # 5 le Poisson [fish]
Slide # 6 la salade [salad]
Slide # 7 la viande [meat]

Slide # 8 la soupe [soup]

Slide # 9 l’agneau [lamb]
Slide # 10 l’eau minerale [mineral water]
Slide # 11 l’artichaut [artichoke]
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS . VOI. 40, N O . 2 303

APPENDIX B

FR 102 Guided Inductive Lesson Plan

Guided Inductive Lesson Plan for the PARTITIVE

(Scripted text is presented in bold.)

Context: La nourriture! [Food !I

Teacher: Aujourdhui nous allons apprendre a parler de la noumture.
[Today we are going to learn how to talk about food.]

I. INTRODUCTION
***Please do not write any phrases on the board until AFTER the presentation***
Teacher: Dam la video Robert et Mireille vont chez Madame Courtois pour le dlner.
[In the video, Robert and Mireille go to Madame Courtois' house for dinner.]

11. PRACTICE SESSION CUED BY POWERPOINT

Teacher: Imaginez que nous sommes au bistro. Dites ce que nous prenons.
[Imagine that we are at the bistro. Say what we (will) have.]

Slide # 1 Teacher: Nous aimons le Coca-cola. [We like Coke.]

Students: Alors, nous prenons du Coca-Cola. (Repetez)
[Then we (will) have Coke. (Repeat)]

Slide # 2 Teacher: Nous aimons la pizza. [We like pizza.]

Students: Alors, nous prenons de la pizza. (Repetez)
[Then we will have pizza. (Repeat)]

DRILL: REPEAT PATTERN

(3 for each article) Follow model slide format for examples.

Teacher: Nous aimons . . . [We like . . .]

Students: Alors, nous prenons . . . [Then we will have . . . 1

Slide # 3 le gazpacho [gazpacho]

Slide # 4 le fromage [cheese]
Slide # 5 le Poisson [fish]
Slide # 6 la salade [salad]
Slide # 7 la viande [meat]
Slide # 8 la soupe [soup]
Slide # 9 l'agneau [lamb]
Slide # 10 l'eau minerale [mineral water]
Slide # 11 l'artichaut [artichoke]
304 SUMMER 2007

111. ATTENTION TO FORM AND COCONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURE

**Please write the numbered sentences below on the board after the presentation. * *

1. Comme entree ils prennent salade.

[For a starter they have salad.]
2. Comme plat principal ils prennent poulet.
[For the main course they have chicken.]
3. Comme boisson ils prennent eau gazeuse.
[For a beverage they have mineral water. I

GUIDED QUESTIONS-Teacher

Voyez-vous une difference entre ces trois noms ? (point to nouns: salade [salad], pou-
let [chicken], e m gazeuse [mineral water] ) [Do you see a difference between these
three nouns? I
“Salade,” c’est un nom masculin ou feminin? Et “poulet”? Singulier ou pluriel ? Et
“eau”? [“Salad,” is it a masculine or a feminine noun? And “chicken”? Singular or
plural? And “water”?I
Pour ces trois noms, s’agit-il d u n e quantite determinee ou indeterminee ? [For these
three nouns are we looking at a determined or an undetermined quantity?]
Completons les phrases ensemble. (Fill in the blanks.) [Let’s complete the sentences
together.]
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS. VOJ,. 40, NO. 2 305

APPENDIX C

Grammatical Concepts and Rules

(The grammatical concepts and rules used in this study were adapted from Capretz (1994)
and Ollivier (1993) for elementary French students’ comprehension. The rules used in the
study reflect the specific use of the structure in the students’ curriculum and therefore may
not be comprehensive or complete explanations.)

Concept: y [there]
Rule: En frangais, le pronom y remplace la preposition + nom de lieu.
Generalementy est place devant le verbe. [In French the personal pronoun
y [there] replaces the preposition a + a name of a place. The pronoun y is
generally placed before the verb.]

Concept : en [somdany]
Rule: En fransais, le pronom en remplace une expression partitive (du, de la, de
l’, ou des + nom). Generalement en est place devant le verbe. [In French
the personal pronoun en replaces a partitive expression (du, de la, de l’, ou
des [some/any]+ a noun). The pronoun en is generally placed before the
verb. ]

Concept : lui I leur [ h e r h i d t h e m ]

Rule: En fransais lui et leur sont des pronoms personnels qui complemen-
tent l’objet indirect d u n e phrase. 11s repondent a la question (< a qui D.
Generalement lui et leur sont places devant le verbe. Les verbes appartenic
demandel; sourire, ressembler et telephoner sont des verbes qui utilisent h i
et leur. [In French lui and leur are personal pronouns that complement the
indirect object of a sentence. They answer the question “to whom.” They
are generally place before the verb. The verbs, appartenir [to belong to],
demander [to ask], sourire [to smile], ressembler [to look like], and tele-
phoner [to telephone] are verbs that use lui or leur.]

Concept: imperative and pronouns

Rule: En franfais quand nous donnons un ordre avec un imperatif affirmatif le
pronom est place apres le verbe. Avec un imperatif negatif le pronom est
place devant le verbe et apres le ne. [In French when we give orders with an
affirmative imperative, the pronoun is placed after the verb. In a negative
imperative the pronoun is placed before the verb and after the ne [not].]

Concept: plaire [to please/be pleasing to]

Rule: En fransais le verbe trouver a un complement dobjet direct et le verbe
plaire a un complement dobjet indirect. [In French the verb trouver [to
find] takes a direct object pronoun and the verb plaire takes an indirect
object pronoun.]

Concept: quilque [who/whom/that/which]

Rule: En fransais le pronom relatif qui represente le sujet du verbe dans la propo-
sition relative (la deuxieme partie de la phrase). Le pronom relatif que
represente l’objet direct du verbe dans la proposition relative (la deuxieme
306 SUMMER 2007

partie de la phrase). [In French the relative pronoun qui represents the sub-
ject of the verb in the relative clause (the second part of the sentence). The
relative pronoun que represents the direct object of the verb in the relative
clause (the second part of the sentence).]

Concept: demonstrative pronouns

Rule: En francais les pronoms demonstratifs (celle, celui, celles, c e u ) rernplacent
les adjectifdarticles dernonstratifs + nom. [In French the demonstrative
pronouns (celle, celui, celles, ceu [ that/the ondthe ones/he/shel replace
demonstrative adjectives/articles + a noun.]

Concept: partitive
Rule: En francais nous utilisons l’article partitif (du, de la, de l’, des) devant des
noms de choses qu’on ne peut pas cornpter pour indiquer une partie ou
une quantite indeterminee des choses. [In French the partitive article (du,
de la, de Z’, des) [some/anyl is used before nouns that one cannot count to
indicate a part of or an undetermined quantity of something.]

APPENDIX D

FR 102 Sample Grammar Quiz

Quiz : PARTITIVE

Robert et Mireille discutent ce qu’ils prennent normalement pour le petit dejeunel:

Rernplissez les blancs avec l’article partit$ correct (DU, DE LA, DE Z)ou l’article defini
(LE, LA,L‘). [Robert and Mireille discuss what they normally eat for breakfast. Fill in
the blanks with the correct partitive (du, de la, de 1’) [some/any] or definite (le, la 1’)
[the] article.]

Mireille: Robert, airnez-vous pain francais?

[Robert, do you like French bread?]

Robert: Oui je prends pain chaque rnatin. Et vous?

[Yes, I eat bread each morning. And you?]

Mireille: Moi aussi, j’aime baguette francaise. Mais pas Marie-Laure. Elle
mange souvent cereales americaines.
[Me too, I love French baguette, but not Marie-Laure. She often eats
American cereals.]
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS. VOl,. 40, NO. 2 307

APPENDIX E

Background Questionnaire

1. French Instructor:

2. Age:

3. Nationality:

4. Gender (please circle one): Female Male

5 . Year in College (please circle one):

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate School

6. Major field(s) of study:

7. Minor field(s) of study:

8. What is your first language?

9. Is this French course an elective or a university requirement?

0elective 0requirement

10. Have you ever studied French before this class?

0yes 0no

11. If yes, please indicate below how long, what year, and at what level:

Number of years When studied Course name

Junior High/Middle School
High School
CollegeNniversity
In France or in
a French-speaking country

12. Have you ever spent time or lived in a French-speaking country?

0yes 0no
Countr( ies) : Length of stay:

13. If you have studied a foreign language other than French, please indicate the langwge
and the number of years studied below.

Language: Number of years studied:

Language: Number of years studied:
308 SUMMER 2007

APPENDIX F

FR 102 Grammar Pre- and Posttest

(* Indicates the correct answer Original test items are in French. English translations are in brackets.)
Allons en France!! [Lets go to France!!]
Imagine you are discussing an upcoming trip to France with a friend. The following are
several sentences discussing life, food, and travel in France. Please read each sentence
and circle the word below that correctly completes the sentence. You will not be penal-
ized for guessing and your performance on this test will not affect your course grade.
1. Paris en France? Oui, nous voudrions aller! [Paris in France? Yes, we would like
to go !I
a. au [to]
b. en [some]
c. y [there] *
d. lui [to her]
e. la [it]
2. Mes parents vont souvent en Europe. C'est la France qui plait le plus. [My par-
ents often go to Europe. It's France that pleases the most.]
a. la [it]
b. les [them]
c. ils [they]
d. eux [ them]
e. leur [them, to them] *
3 . Avant de partir pour la France, achetez un nouveau parapluie pour vous proteger con-
tre la pluie. Choisissez - ci, ou - la. [Before leaving for France, buy a new
umbrella to protect you from the rain. Choose one or one.I
a. celui, celui [this one, that one] *
b. lesquels, lesquels [which ones, which ones]
c. ce, ce [this, this]
d. ces, ces [this, this]
e. celle, celle [this one, that one]
4. N'oubliez pas de telephoner a votre agent de voyage. Dites- de vous reserver
un h6tel pas tres cher. [Don't forget to call your travel agent. Tell _ _ to reserve an
inexpensive hotel for you.]
a. leur [to them]
b. lui [to her] *
c. le [it]
d. les [them]
e. elle [she]
5. Quand vous cherchez un hotel sur l'lnternet, regardez bien les photos et choisissez
qui a une piscine. [When you look for a hotel on the Internet, pay attention to
the photos and choose that has a pool.]
a. le [it]
b. en [some]
c. ce [this]
d. celui [the one] *
e. celle [the one]
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 40, N O . 2 309

6. Avant de partir pour la France il faut choisir une ligne aerienne est la plus eco-
nome. [Beforeleaving for France it is necessary to choose an airline is the most
economic.]
a. dont [of which]
b. ce que [that which]
c. qui [that]"
d. que [that]
e. quel [which]
7. Quand je vais en France je vais souvent a la plage. Quand vous &tesen vacances vous
passez du temps aussi ? [When 1 go to France I often go to the beach. When
you are on vacation do you pass time as well?]
a. en [some]
b. y [there] *
c. la [it]
d. a [to]
e. oh [where]
8. Mon professeur de frangais visite souvent La CBte d'Azur. La Mediterraneenne
plait beaucoup. [My French professor often visits the C6te dAzur. The Mediterranean
really pleases .]
a. la [it]
b. le [it]
c. leur [to them, them]
d. lui [to him, him] *
e. il [he]
9. Ecrivez a vos parents apres votre arrivee! Non, ! Cela prendra trop
de temps. [Write your parents after your arrival! Non, ! That will
take too much time.]
a. Ne telephonez pas a votre mere! [Don't call your mother!]
b. Mangez les frites ! [Eat French fries!]
c. Ecrivez une carte postale ! [Write a post card!]
d. Ne les mangez pas ! [Don't eat them!]
e. Ne leur ecrivez pas de lettre ! [Don't write them a letter!]*
10.Les Francais adorent vin. [The French love wine.]
a. un [a]
b. du [some]
c. le [thel"
d. de [some]
e. les [thel
11.Les Francais mangent du lapin. Les touristes americains n' mangent pas. [The
French eat rabbit. The American tourists don't eat .]
a. du [some]
b. le [the]
c. y [there]
d. en [some]"
e. un [a]
310 SUMMER 2007

12.La salade est un plat les Francais prennent apres la viande. [The salad is a course
the French have after the meat.]
a. que [that]*
b. quel [which]
c. lequel [which one]
d. qui [that]
e. dont [of which]
13.Les Francais boivent de l'eau minerale. Vous buvez aussi? [The French drink
mineral water. Do you drink -as well?]
a. le [the]
b. de l'[some]
c. en [some]*
d. y [there]
e. 1' [the]
14.Aux restaurants francais, il faut prendre cafe a la fin du repas. [At French res-
taurants it is necessary to have coffee at the end of the meal.]
a. le [the]
b. du [some]*
c. de [of]
d. quelque [some]
e. une [a]
15.llEmpire State Building appartient aux Americains. Par contre, la Tour Eiffel ne
appartient. Elle appartient aux Francais bien stir! [The Empire State Building
belongs to the Americans. However, the Eiffel Tower doesn't belong to -. It belongs
to the French of course! ]
a. les [them]
b. eux [them]
c. des [some]
d. lui [to him]
e. leur [to them] *
16.Vous avez l'intention de porter un chapeau americain en France? D'accord,
-! Mais tout le monde va vous regarder. [You intend on wearing an American hat in
France? Okay, ! But everyone is going to look at you.]
a. Portez-le! [Wear it!]*
b. Portez-la! [Wear it!]
c. Portez une robe! [Wear a dress!]
d. Ne le portez pas ! [Don't wear it! ]
e. "en portez pas! [Don't wear any!]