Inductive and Deductive Learning

THE EFFECTS OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE APPROACHES OF TEACHING ON JORDANIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' USE OF THEACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICE IN ENGLISHBy: Mohammed, Azmi Adel, Jaber, Hanna Abu, College Student Journal, 01463934, Jun2008 Part B, Vol. 42, Issue 2. Database: Academic Search Premier1.Related LiteratureThis empirical study presented the description of two teaching methods called "deductive" and "inductive" approaches. The first involved providing a group of participants with rules and then examples directly and separately, but the second approach involves providing another group of participants with examples or content without offering explicit grammar rules, and so the students should induce such rules by themselves. This study investigated the effects of each approach and the interaction between "the type of teaching approach" and "the use of the active and passive voice sentences" in English as a foreign language (EFL). Ninety-three freshman and junior university students participated in this study. They were chosen randomly from three classes in two universities in Jordan. The method of the study included a pretest, two lessons for each group in the three classes and a posttest. The results of the study reveal a significant statistical result at the level of 0.05 between the two approaches for the deductive group. But there is no significant difference between classes for the same type of approach. There is also no significant effect for the interaction between approach and class.1.1 The Importance of Teaching GrammarEnglish is today the world's most widely used language. The desire to learn it is at the present is so immense. The future of English as an international language has always been said to rest on the practicability of teaching the language. For more than 2000 years of debate regarding whether grammar should be a primary focus of language instruction or should be eliminated entirely, or should be subordinated to meaning-focused use of the target language is continuing in the tradition. But once again, the need for grammar instruction is attracting the attention of researchers and teachers of second language acquisition. A debate was theoretically represented by Krashen's (1981) distinction between conscious learning and unconscious acquisition of language. The claim was that language should be acquired through natural exposure, not learned through formal instruction (Ellis, 2002; Skehan, 1998). Despite such research findings, Nassaji and Fotos (2004) indicate that current research in second language learning, however, has led to a reconsideration of the role of grammar in second language classroom. The research suggests that some types of focus on grammatical forms were necessary if learners were to develop high levels of accuracy in the target language.Most second language investigators agree that noticing or awareness of target structures and forms plays an essential role in second language learning was necessary if learners were to develop high levels of accuracy in the target language (Doughty, 2001; Ellis, 2002). Briefly, the reconsideration of grammar teaching in second language classroom, according to many researchers and investigators, is evidence for the positive effects of grammar instruction as their empirical and classroom based studies.1.2 The Deductive Approach of TeachingThe deductive approach of teaching English grammar refers to the style of teaching students by introducing the grammatical rules first, and then applying them by the students. This means that a teacher works from the more general to the more specific in a deductive approach called informally a "top down" approach. Decoo (1996) understands education as a process that goes from the general to the specific. Whereas Mountone (2004) states that the deductive methods seem to work best if you want students to be able to quickly and accurately solve problems like those worked out in class or in the work. Younie (1974) believes that the deductive approach is more predictable because the teacher selects the information and the sequence of presentation.Shaffer (1989) criticizes the deductive approach clarifying that the problem many students have applying these various rules indicates that they may not fully understand the concepts involved and that the deductive approach tends to emphasize grammar at the expense of meaning and to promote passive rather than active participation of the students. But Goner et al (1978) state that the deductive approach can be effective with students of a higher level, who already know the basic structures of the language, or with students who are accustomed to a very traditional style of learning." Schrampfer and Spack (2005) introduce a program where the presentation-practice-production-evaluation pattern adopted by the program is a feature of the deductive approach to the teaching grammar assuming that potential users will understand the rule governing the target grammar pattern.1.3 The Inductive Approach of TeachingThe inductive approach refers to the style of introducing language context containing the target rules where students can induce such rules through the context and practical examples. In other words, the sequence in this approach goes from creating a situation and giving examples to the generalization where students should discover such generalization by themselves or with the teacher's help. Mautone (2004) says that with an inductive approach, teachers show their students a series of examples and non-examples, and then guide them toward noticing a pattern and coming up with the generalization or concept rule.Some scholars such as Ausubel (1963) and Carroll (1964) indicated that the inductive approach was too difficult for weaker or slower students, and that only brighter students were capable of discovering the underlying patterns of a structure, but the results of Shaffer's research (1989) indicate that weaker students do benefit from an inductive approach.Among several studies supporting the idea that the inductive approach has proved its success in achieving students' retention or memory and deep understanding, Younie's (1974) states that students tend to remember when learning occurs inductively. Some teachers support such ideas and believe that engaging with the meaning of forms and words through an inductive approach leads to better understanding and retention. Bluedorn (1989), and Shaffer (1989) view that it has been very successful in teaching adults conversational ability with modern foreign languages, but not with classical languages. No doubt, we agree with those researchers and teachers who focus on the importance of student’s involvement, which may come through the inductive approach of teaching. We also share them the idea that students should depend upon their mental ability and prior information as this approach may sometimes represent a kind of challenge for learners.1.4 Comparison: the Deductive and Inductive ApproachesTeacher' approaches of teaching English grammar play an important role in classrooms where students should understand what they are taught and how to use it correctly. Here, we are interested in the deductive and inductive approaches. This interest leads us to review some previous studies which compared between the two of them, or focused on their advantages and disadvantages.In comparing between the two approaches, one of the differences is that a deductive approach is most close with the grammar-translation method of teaching languages, while an inductive approach is considered close to audio-lingualism, where meaning and grammar induced from practice with examples in situations and substitution tables (Gollin, 1998). According to Shaffer (1989) an inductive approach was formerly always equated with the audio-lingual method of the sixties, defined as habit-formation unless the teacher gave the students at the end of the lesson the appropriate rule.The second main difference between these two approaches is regarding the steps or procedures of each one. Whereas the deductive approach begins with the step of introducing rules or principles, the inductive approach begins with language context involving application of such rules. In the deductive sequence, ideas proceed from generalizations, principles, rules, laws, propositions, or theories to specific applications. The deductive sequence involves presenting generalization and then seeking or providing examples as Younie (1974) states.The third difference is related to what is explicit and implicit of knowledge or grammar through the teaching-learning process. Donate and Adair-Hauck (1992) relate between deductive approach and explicit explanations by the teacher, and also between modalities of inductive approaches and implicit learning by the student. In a comparison of explicit and implicit teaching strategies, Chaudron (1988) points at the large number of product-studies that have investigated the effects of explicit versus implicit grammar instruction on achievement calling the implicit approach "pattern practice or inductive". In a follow-up study, however, Scott (1990) defines the explicit strategy as the " deliberate study of a grammar rule, either by deductive analysis or inductive analogy."Littlewood's (1975) viewpoint is that the approach that makes the grammar explicit is one of these two ways: 1) when the rule is regarded as a summary of behavior, which comes after presenting a piece of language, and may be after practicing it for a time. 2) when "command of the rule through explanation is regarded as the starting-point for language use", but "it does not exclude using inductive classroom techniques", which means that the grammar explicit can come through the two approaches.Age is the fourth difference or controversial issue discussed by scholars. Rivers (1975) finds the use of the deductive approach most useful for mature, well-motivated student, or for adult student in intensive courses, and finds the inductive approach more appropriate for young language learners. In fact, we don't know the exact ages suggested by Rivers who recommends using age as a factor of choice between the two approaches.But time is the fifth difference, which distinguishes between the two approaches. Younie (1974) hypothesizes that the deductive approach is faster and can be an efficient way to teach large numbers of facts and concretes. We agree with Younie that "the deductive approach sticks directly to the point, and so it saves time." In other words, explaining the offered rules or generalizations takes less time than leaving them to be elicited by the learners themselves. Therefore, the learners have more time for practice or application.The sixth different factor between the deductive and the inductive approaches is student involvement. It is available when teaching inductively but passive rather active when teaching deductively (Shaffer 1989). This conclusion is also given by other researchers or teachers who see that in the deductive approach the teacher explanation in a classroom often minimizes student involvement and interaction. But in the inductive approach students are more actively involved in the learning process, rather than simply passive recipients.The seventh difference or controversial factor is related to the terms "easy" or simple and "difficult" or complex. The similarity and dissimilarity between the rules in the first language and the rules in the foreign language should be taken into consideration Traditionally, deductive approach is used to teach grammar because it is easy to control, and efficient, but it becomes boring when used repeatedly. Inductive approach, on the other hand, is rather demanding and rewarding, but it needs more time and more effort to control. Fischer (1979) comes to the criteria that if the foreign language grammar rule is simpler than the native language rule, then an inductive approach is the most appropriate; if the foreign language of equal or greater complexity than the native language rule, a deductive approach is to be preferred.2. MethodologyIt is noticed that teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) often tend to use a deductive approach in teaching parts of speech or grammatical structures, that is, by presenting rules before giving examples. But those who want their students to be creative through their deep thinking tend to use an inductive approach, that is, by presenting examples and asking the students to induce rules by themselves. We, as teachers of EFL as well as researchers, tend to use both approaches eclectically according to content or goals or situation.2.1 Questions of the StudyThis empirical study focuses on the effects of the deductive and inductive approaches of teaching the passive and the active voice for university students as learners of EFL. The deductive approach is based on providing the learners with rules and explanation with examples. But the inductive approach is based on giving examples without providing the learners with rules where they should induce such rules by themselves. The questions of this study are as follows:A. Is there a significant difference between the results of the students taught the active and the passive voice by the deductive approach and those taught by the inductive approach?B. Is there a significant difference between the results of the classes taught the active and the passive voice by the deductive approach?C. Is there a significant difference between the results of the classes taught the active and the passive voice by the inductive approach?2.2 ParticipantsThis study was conducted in two universities in Jordan: Al-Balqa' Applied University and Jerash Private University. Three classes (sections) of students shared in the study. Two classes from Amman Faculty of Engineering Technology in the first university and one class from the Faculty of Arts (English Department) in the second university. The first class consists of freshman students studying English skills 99 (Elementary English Course); the second class consists of junior students studying English skills 102 (Intermediate English course); and the third class consists of freshman students studying English skills 101 (Pre-intermediate English course). All the students of the three classes studied the active and the passive voice during the secondary stage when they were secondary students.The students of each class were divided randomly into two groups: one group was taught the passive and the active voice by "deductive approach" and the other group by "inductive approach", so we call them "deductive group" and "inductive group". Those who were taught deductively were exposed to specific grammatical rules where they paid conscious attention to language so as to understand such rules. But those who were taught inductively were given examples without being exposed to such rules. Instead, they were left to induce the rules by themselves.All together, ninety-three students from the three classes in the two Jordanian universities participated. The three classes were divided randomly into six groups. The age of the students ranged from eighteen to twenty. Two teachers who are the researchers of this study participated in the study. It should be noticed that two students didn't perform the posttest, and so they were not involved in the results.3.TestingA pre-test was used as a means of feasible evaluation. The participants completed the pretest a few days before being taught two lessons about the active and the passive voice. One group was taught deductively, and the other group inductively. A posttest was completed by the participants about one week after the instructional lessons. All the pretest and posttest exams completed by the three classes took place during timetabled university lecture hours. The version used as a pretest or as a posttest consisted of two main questions: the first was a multiple-choice question where the participants answered twenty items by circling a, b, c or d that represents the best answer (distracter) and the second consisted of twenty items and was about changing the active voice sentences into the passive voice wherever possible. The full mark for the first question was 40 marks whereas it was 60 marks for the second question.4.Conclusion and DiscussionThe statistical results of this study showed that students in the deductive group made significant better gains than those in the inductive group on the use of the passive and the active voice. These results came to support Ausubel (1974) and Carrol (1964) whose idea is that since adults are endowed with a cognitive network enabling them to understand abstract concepts, teachers should speed up the language acquisitionby giving the learners explicit rules in a deductive learning framework. Similar results were given by Erlam (2003) revealing a significant advantage for the deductive instruction group. The study highlighted the difficulty of designing language measures that access implicit language knowledge.The results which showed a greater effect for deductive than for inductive instruction made this study in contrast to ideas in papers for researchers such as Dulay and Burt (1973) and Krashen (1980) who believed that teachers could provide their students with comprehensive input without a need for explicit rules. We noticed that the deductive approach groups showed that they were able to apply the rules immediately after given written questions and their answers were approximately accurate whereas the inductive approach group needed more time to answer the questions during the lessons.It may be argued that students are not involved enough when a deductive approach is used, but this is up to the teachers who can make their involvement more through discussing exercises with the class, giving them enough time to think deeply before choosing the most appropriate answer. This minimizes the role of the teacher, which is well-known as the center of the class when the traditional deductive approach is used. The conclusion of the study makes us agree with the hypothesis saying that when teaching grammar for the sake of grammar, the deductive approach helps more than the inductive approach. We can also claim that writing all the rules on the board, giving the model answers of the exercises and discussing the differences and similarities with the class led to successful lesson taught deductively.This study proposes both approaches can be used in the teaching-learning processes, but before teaching the active and passive voice, it seemed that the deductive approach was more appropriate because the nature of the content is based on the grammatical rules of the active and the passive voice. But in other cases, particularly, when the teaching-learning process of grammar is complex some improvements might be needed, such as introducing concepts using a combination of both deductive and inductive approaches and reviewing patterns so as to avoid an entirely linear presentation (Schrampfer and Spack, 2005). Regarding the problem that applying rules indicates that students may not in fact fully understand the concepts involved where the deductive approach tends to emphasize grammar at the expense of meaning and to promote passive rather than active participation (Shaffer), we were able to solve such a problem by asking the students questions related to the meaning of active and passive sentences and why or when should we use one of them and not the other so as to keep the better meaning.Among other reasons behind getting higher marks by the deductive group is that the deductive group were able to get more feedback when comparing their answers with the teachers model answers on one hand and with the given rules on the other hand. We agree with Bluedorn, (1998) that the deductive method is effective to the degree it is clear, comprehensive and digestible, and Rivers (1975), who finds the use of the deductive approach most useful for mature, well-motivated students, or for adult students in intensive courses.。

归纳法和演绎法英语Induction and deduction are two important methods of reasoning that are commonly used in different fields of study. They are useful tools for understanding, analyzing and evaluating information, ideas or concepts. In this article,we will explore the differences between induction and deduction, their definitions, and how they can be applied in English language learning.Induction is a method of reasoning that begins with specific instances or examples, and then develops a general conclusion based on these examples. It is often referred toas bottom-up reasoning, as it starts from the bottom andworks its way up. For example, if we observe that all thecats we have seen have fur, we might conclude that all cats have fur.Deduction, on the other hand, is a method of reasoning that starts with a general principle or hypothesis, and then uses logical deductions to arrive at specific conclusions. It is often referred to as top-down reasoning, as it starts from the top and works its way down. For example, if we know thatall cats have fur, and we observe that a particular animalhas fur, we can deduce that it is a cat.In English language learning, induction can be a useful tool for developing vocabulary skills. By identifying examples of words in context, learners can begin to identify patterns and develop an understanding of the new vocabulary. For example, by reading a range of texts and identifyingwords associated with a particular topic, learners candevelop an understanding of the key concepts and themes of that topic.Deduction, on the other hand, can be a useful tool for developing grammar skills. By starting with a general principle, such as the rules for using verbs in a particular tense, learners can then apply these rules to specific examples, and deduce the correct form of the verb to use in a given context. For example, by learning the basic rules for forming the past tense in English, learners can then deduce that the correct form of the verb “walk” in the past tense is “walked.”It is important to note that both induction and deduction can be used in combination, depending on the situation at hand. For example, when learning new vocabulary, learners might use both inductive and deductive reasoning to develop an understanding of how the new words are used in context, and how they relate to other words in the language.In conclusion, induction and deduction are two useful methods of reasoning that can be applied in a range of contexts, including English language learning. By understanding the differences between these methods, and knowing when to use each one, learners can develop their skills in vocabulary and grammar, and enhance their ability to understand and communicate in English.。

deductive inductive区别归纳法或归纳推理（Inductive reasoning），有时叫做归纳逻辑，是论证的前提支持结论但不确保结论的推理过程。

它基于对特殊的代表（token）的有限观察，把性质或关系归结到类型；或基于对反复再现的现象的模式（pattern）的有限观察，公式表达规律。

例如，使用归纳法在如下特殊的命题中：冰是冷的。

弹子球在击打球杆的时候移动。

推断出普遍的命题如：所有冰都是冷的。

所有弹子球都在击打球杆的时候移动。

强归纳所有观察到的乌鸦都是黑的。

所以所有乌鸦都是黑的。

这例示了归纳的本质：从特殊归纳出普遍。

结论明显不是确定的。

除非我们见过所有的乌鸦-我们怎能都知道呢?-可能还有些罕见的蓝乌鸦或是白乌鸦。

弱归纳我总是把画像挂在钉子上。

所以所有画像都是挂在钉子上的。

在这个例子中，前提创建在确定事物之上：“我总是把画像挂在钉子上”，但是不是所有的人都把画像挂在钉子上，而那些确实使用钉子的人也可能只是有时使用。

有很多物体可以用来挂画像，包括但不限于：螺丝钉、螺栓和夹子。

我做的结论是过度普遍化，并在某些情况下是错的。

少年们得到了许多超速罚单。

所以所有少年都超速。

在这个例子中，基础前提不是创建在确定事物之上：不是所有我发现超速的少年得到了罚单。

这可能在于少年要超速的普遍本质-同乌鸦是黑的一样-但是前提所基于的更像痴心妄想而不是直接的观察。

演绎推理（英语：Deductive Reasoning）在传统的亚里士多德逻辑中是「结论，可从叫做‘前提’的已知事实，‘必然地’得出的推理」。

如果前提为真，则结论必然为真。

这区别于溯因推理和归纳推理：它们的前提可以预测出高概率的结论，但是不确保结论为真。

“演绎推理”还可以定义为结论在普遍性上不大于前提的推理，或「结论在确定性上，同前提一样」的推理。

前提2，任何三角形只可能是锐角三角形、直角三角形和钝角三角形。

前提2，这个三角形既不是锐角三角形，也不是钝角三角形。

英语教学法术语The Terms of English Language Teaching Methodology英语教学法术语Aachievement test 成绩测试acquisition 习得，语言习得acquisition 语言习得顺序active mastery 积极掌握active vocabulary 积极词汇，主动词汇affective filtering 情感筛选aim,objective 目的，目标analysis of errors 错误分析analytic approach 分析教学法，分析法analytical reading 分析性阅读application to practice 运用于实践applied linguistics 应用语言学approach 教学路子aptitude test 能力倾向测验Army method 陆军法associative learning 联想性学习auditory discrimination 辨音能力auditory feedback 听觉反馈auditory memory 听觉记忆auditory perception 听觉audio-lingual method 听说法audio-visual method 视听法aural-oral approach 听说教学法，听说法aural-oral method 听说法Bbasic knowledge 基本知识basic principle 基本原则basic theory 基本理论basic training 基本训练basic vocabulary 基本词汇behaviourism 行为主义bilingual 双语的bilingual education 双语教育blank filling 填空Cchain drill 链式操练，连锁操练choral repetition 齐声照读，齐声仿读class management 课常管理classroom interaction 课常应对cloze 完形填空coach 辅导cognitive approach 认知法common core 语言的共同核心，语言共核communicative drill 交际性操练communicative exercise 交际练习communicative langunge teaching 交际派语言教学法，交际教学法community language learning 集体语言学习法comparative method 比较法communicative approach 交际法comprehensible input 不难理解的输入comprehensive method 综合法computer-managed instruction 计算机管理教学concord and coordination 默契与配合console 控制台consonant cluster 辅音连缀context 上下文controlled composition 控制性作文course density 课堂密度course design 课程设计cramming method 灌输式cue word 提示词curriculum 课程，教学大纲curriculum development 课程编制，课程设计cultrual objective,aim 教养目的cclical approach 循环教学法，循环法Ddeductive learning 演绎性学习deductive method 演绎法delayed auditory feedback 延缓听觉反馈demonstration 演示demonstration lesson 示范教学describe a picture in writing 看图说话describe a picture orally 描写语言学diagram 图解diagnostic test 诊断性测验dicto-comp 听写作文direct application 直接应用direct comprehension 直接理解direct learning 直接学习direct method 直接教学法Eeducational objective, aim 教育目的EFL 英语作为外语EGP 通用英语ELT 英语教学English as a Foreign Language 英语作为外语English as an International Language 英语作为国际语言English environment 英语环境English for Academic Purposes 学术英语English for general prupose 普通英语English for General Purposes 通用英语English for specific purposes 专用英语ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages 供非英语民族使用的英语English medium school 英语授课学校English teaching;teaching English 英语教学WSD（English as a Second Dialect）英语作为第二方言WSL（English as a Second Language）英语作为第二语言ESL Programme（English as a Second Language Programme）英语（第二语言）教程ESP（English for Special Purposes）专用英语EST（English for Science and Technology）科技英语evaluation 评语，评价examination 考试examination question 考题experimental method 实验法extensive reading 泛读external speech 外语言语extra-curiculum activity 课外活动extra-curriculum club,group 课外小组Ffacial expression 面部表情feedbace 反馈film projector 电影放映机filmstrip 电影胶片final stage 高级阶段first language 第一语言，母语formative evaluation 自由作文free practice 自由练习frequency of word 词的频率al approach 功能法al syllabus 功能派教学大纲word 功能词Ggeneral linguistics 普通语言学gestalt style 格式塔式（学习），整体式（学习）gesture 手势getting students ready for class 组织教学global learning 整体式学习，囫囵吞枣式学习global question 综合性问题gradation 级进法，分级递升法graded direct method 循序直接法grading 级进法，分级递升法；评分grammar lesson 语法课grammar method 语法法grammar translation method 语法翻译法grammatical analysis 语法分析group reading 集体朗读group training 集体练习guided composition 引导性作文Hheuristic method of teaching 启发式教学法heurstics 启发法；探索法humanistic approach 人本主义教学法Iidealism 唯心主义imitatiom 模仿immersion programme 沉浸式教学imparting knowledge 传授知识incomplete plosive 不完全爆破independent composition 独立作文individualized instruction 个别教学individual training 个别练习inductive learning 归纳性学习inductive method 归纳法inflection,inflexion 词形变化information,processing 信息处理initial beginning stage 初级阶段inner speech 内语言语in-service training 在职培训instructional objective 语言教学目标integrative teaching 综合教学integrated approach 综合教学法，综合法intelligent memory 理解性记忆language training 强化教学intensive training 精读intermediate stage 中级阶段interpretation 头口翻译International Phonetic Alphabet 国际音标Jjuncture 连读，音渡junior high school 初级中学junior school 初级学校junior sceondary school 初级中等学校junior-senior high school 初高中junior technical college(or school) 初级职业学院（或学校）junior year 大学三年级Kkey words 基本词，关键字kinesics 身势语，身势学kinesthetic memory 动觉记忆knowledge 知识knowledge structure 知识结构Llanguage acquisition 语言习得language acquisition device 语言习得机制language arts 语言技能language competence,or knowledge 语言知识language learning capability 语言学习能力language laboratory;lab 语言实验室language leaning capacity 语言学习能力language pedagogy 语言教育language performance 语言行为language program design 语言课程设计language test 语言测试learning by deduction 演绎性学习learning by induction 归纳性学习learning process 学习过程learning style 学习方式lesson conducting 教课lesson plan 课时计划，教案lesson preparation 备课lesson type 课型linguistics 语言学linguistic competence 语言能力linguistic method 口语领先教学法living language 活的语言long-term memory 长期记忆look-and-say method 看图说话法Mmeaningful drill 有意义的操练neabubgful exercise 有意义的练习meaningful learning 理解性学习means of teaching 教学手段mechanical drill 机械操练mechanical exercise 机械练习mechanical memory 机械记忆mechanical translation 机器翻译medium of instruction 教学媒介语，教学语言memory 记忆，记忆力memory span 记忆幅度memorizing 用记记住method 方法methodology of teaching 教学法methodology of teaching English 英语教学法microteaching 微型教学mim-mem method 模仿—记忆法minimal pair 最小对立体（一种辨音练习）model 模型modeling 示范教学modern equipment 现代化设备modern language 现代语言monitor hypothesis 语言监控说mother tongue 母语motivation 引起动机Nnative language 本族语natural appoach 自然教学法，自然法natural method 自然法needs analysis 需要分析new lesson 新课nine-pile grading 九堆法notional approach 意念法notional-al syllabus 意念-功能派教学大纲notional syllabus 意念大纲、意念派教学大纲Oobservation lesson 观摩教学objective 教学目标optimum age hypothesis 学习最佳年龄说operating principle 操作原则oral approach 口语教学法，口语法oral exercise 口语练习oral method 口授法oral reading 朗读order of acquisition 语言习得顺序organization of teaching materials 教材组织organs of speech 发音器官outside reading 课外阅读overlearing 过量学习Ppaired-associate learning 配对联想学习法pair work 双人作业，双人练习passive vocabulary 消极词汇pattern drill 句型操练pattern practice 句型练习pdeagogical grammar 教学语法pedagogy 教育法peer teaching 同学互教penmanship handwriting 书法perception 知觉performance objective 语言实践目标personality 个性philosophy 哲学phoneme 音素phonetics 语音法phonetic method 按字母音值拼读法phonology 音位学picture 图画phasement test 分班测验plateau of learning 学习高原practical objective 实用目的practice effect 练习效应practice of teaching 教学实践presentation of new materials 提出新材料pre-teaching 预教primary of speech 口语领先principle of communication 交际性原则principle of teaching 教学原则problem solving 习题解答production stage 活用阶段，产出阶段productive exercise 活用练习productive mastery 活用掌握productive vocabulary 活用词汇proficiency 熟练program desing 课程设计psycho-linguistics 心理语言学psychological method 心理法Qqualified teacher 合格教师question band 试题库questionnaire 调查问卷questions 提问Rrapid reading 快速阅读，快读rate of reading 阅读速度readability 易读性read by turns 轮读reading 阅读reading lesson 阅读课reading method 阅读法reading speed 阅读速度reading vocabulary 阅读词汇，阅读词汇量receptive language knowledge 接受性语言知识receptive vocabulary 领会词汇reformed method 改良法regression 回看，重读reinforcement 巩固reinforcement lesson 巩固课repetition drill 复述操练repetition-stage 仿照阶段response 反应retelling 复述retention 记忆teview;tevision 复习review（revise）and check up 复习检查review（revision）lesson 复习课rewriting 改写rhythm 节奏role-play 扮演角色rote learning 强记学习法，死记硬背Sscanning 查阅，扫瞄school practice 教学实习scientific way of thinking 科学的思想方法second language 第二语言segment 音段，切分成分semantics 语义学seminar 课堂讨论sentence completion 完成句子short-term memory 短期记忆sight vocabulary 一见即懂的词汇silent reading 默读silent way 沉默法，静授法simplification 简写simplified reader 简写读本simulation 模拟，模拟性课堂活动simultaneous interpretation 同声翻译situational method 情景法situational language teaching 情景派语言教学法，情景教学法situational method 情景教学法situational syllabus 情景派教学大纲situation reinforcement 情景强化法skimming 略读，济览slide 幻灯片slide projector 幻灯片socialized speech 社会化言语socio-linguistics 社会语言学soft ware 软件speech disorder 言语缺陷speech pathology 言语病理学speech perception 言语知觉speech reading 唇读法speed reading 快速阅读，快读speelling 正字法spiral approach 螺旋式教学法，螺旋法spoken lauguang 口语stage of teaching 教学阶段stick drawing;mathch drawing 简笔画stimulus and response 刺激与反应stress accent 重音，重读structuralism 结构主义（语言学）structural method 结构法student-centered 学生中心student-centered learning 学生为主学习法student teacher 实习教师student teaching 教育实习submersion programme 沉浸式教程substitution 替换substitution table 替换表subvocal reading 默读suggestopaedia 暗示教学法syllabus 教学大纲syllabus design 教学大纲设计syllabus for middle school English 中学英语教学大纲synthetic approach 综合性教学法，综合法synthetical reading 综合性阅读Ttarget language 目的语，译文语言teacher’s book 教师用书teacher’s manual 教师手册teaching experience 教学经验teaching objective,aim 教学目的teaching procedure 教学过程teaching tools;property 教具teaching words in isolation 孤立教单词theory of teaching 教学理论TEFL 英语（外语）教学TESL 英语（第二语言）教学TESOL 对非英语民族教英语time allotment 时间分配total physical response method 整体动作反应法transformation drill 转换操练translation method 翻译法transformational generative grammar 转化生成语法Uunconscious 潜意识underclassman 低年级学生undergraduate 大学本科生undergraduate course 大学本科课程undergraduate school 大学本科学院undergraduate special 大学特殊课程unified studied 统一课程university high school 大学附属中学university of the air 广播电视大学updating courses/training 现代化课程/训练upgrading courses/training 进修课程/训练upperclassman 高年级学生use and usage 使用和用法utterance 语段Vverbal association 词语联想verbal learning 语言学习，单词学习video 电视，影象videotape 录象磁带visual perception 视觉visual aid 直观手段visit a class 听课visual memory 视觉记忆vocabulary control 词汇控制Wword association 词际联想word list 词表word study 词的研究word frequency 词汇重复率written language 书面语。

外语教学法自考题-25(总分：85.00，做题时间：90分钟)一、{{B}}Ⅰ.Multiple Choice{{/B}}(总题数：15，分数：15.00)1.______was Palmer's core methodological principle in language teaching and learning.∙ A. Stimulus and response∙ B. Habit-formation∙ C. Form and meaning∙ D. Meaning and situation（分数：1.00）A.B. √C.D.解析：[解析] 习惯形成是帕尔默口语教学法原则的核心。

在《语言学习的原则》(1921)一书中，帕尔默坚持认为，人们自然的、无意识的习得语言的自发能力与学生通过训练或“学习”得到的能力之间有着根本的不同。

A是听说法的理论基础。

2.American structuralism started in ______.∙ A. the early 20th century∙ B. the late 20th century∙ C. the early 19th century∙ D. the late 1930s and 19d0s（分数：1.00）A. √B.C.D.解析：[解析] 美国结构主义语言学始于20世纪初，流行于20世纪30年代和40年代。

3.The Communicative Approach has a theory of language rooted in ______.∙ A. functional linguistics∙ B. transformational generative linguistics∙ C. structural linguistics∙ D. cognitive linguistics（分数：1.00）A. √B.C.D.解析：[解析] 交际法的语言理论基础是功能语言学。

情境教学法在高中英语语法教学中的应用摘要：多年来，中学英语教学只注重语言形式，忽视其意义和用法。

本文旨在研究情境教学法在高中英语语法教学中的使用性及有效性，帮助学生提高语言综合应用能力。

关键词：情境教学法高中英语语法教学新课标一、高中英语语法教学英语是生活中交往的工具，而语法是语言基本规律的提炼和总结。

传统的高中英语语法教学，即便利用了归纳和演绎语法教学方法，也都以教师的传授为主，往往是教师从课文里选出例句，告诉学生意义是什么，属于什么语法现象，它的结构是怎样的，然后就是机械操练，不然就是在我国语法教学中长期占统治地位的“翻译语法教学法”，诸如此类的方法远远落后于新课改。

语法教学不能局限在语法自身的范畴内，必须与逻辑思维、人的说话意识、与篇章语境、题材和体裁、词汇的用法和文化联系起来，以探究的方式学习语法，在完成任务的过程中加以巩固和应用。

因此，语法教学不是单纯地教授语法知识，语法知识只是一种掌握英语这门语言规律的工具，进而在应用中提高听、说、读、写能力。

二、情境教学法（一）情境教学法的定义情境教学法是建立在建构主义之上的，建构主义强调学习者在一定的情境，借助其他的必要学习手段，比如教师和学生的互动，学生之间的互相帮助，通过意义建构习得的。

基于此产生的情境化教学初步形成于20世纪70年代，情境教学法在我国最初是由小学语文特级教师李吉林提出的。

所谓情境教学法就是在教学活动中，教师根据教学目标设置和模拟真实、生动的语言使用场景，使学生在这种逼真的学习或接近逼真的生活场景中，体验学习和使用目标语言，同时提倡学生参与、合作和交流，提高学生综合应用目标语言的能力的一种教学方法。

（二）情境教学法应用于高中英语语法教学的可行性1.情境教学法与语法教学相结合可以提高学生英语的综合应用能力新课标明确指出高中英语教学的总目标是：进一步发展学生的英语综合应用能力，即听说读写四大能力。

高中的英语教学从教材的编排及高考的试题类型来看，侧重点是学生阅读能力的培养。

英语教学法教程知识点总结FLTM: foreign language teaching methodology is a science which studies the processes and patterns of foreign language teaching, aiming at revealing the natural and laws of foreign languages.Major approaches in FLT:Grammar-translation method (deductive演绎法)Direct method (inductive归纳法)Audio-lingual methodHumanistic approaches: that emphasize the development of human values, growth in self-awareness and in the understanding of others, sensitivity to human feelings and emotions, and active student involvement in learning and in the way human learning takes palaceThe silent waySuggestopediaCommunity language learning (CLL)Total physical response method (TPR)●The natural approach(NA)●The communic ative approach(CA )An approach is a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language teaching ad leaning. Approach is axiomatic. It describes the nature of the subject matter to b taught.Method is an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no part of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach. An approach is axiomatic, a method is procedural. Within one approach, there can be many methods.A technique is implementation---that which actually takes place in a classroom. It is a particular trick, stratagem, or contrivance used to accomplish an immediate objective. Techniques must b consistent with amethod, and therefore I harmony with an approach as well.Views on language:Structural view: the structural view of language sees language as a linguistic system made up of various subsystems: the sound system (phonology); the discrete units of meaning produced by sound combinations (morphology); and the system of combining units of meaning for communication (syntax).Functional view: the functional view not only sees language as a linguistic system but also means for doing things. Functional activities: offering, suggesting, advising, apologizing, etc.International view: considers language to be a communicative tool, whose main use is to build up and maintain social relations between people. Therefore, learners not only need to know the grammar and vocabulary of the language but as importantly theyneed to know the rules for using them in a whole range of communicative contexts. Process-oriented theories: are concerned with how the mind organizes new information such as habit formation, induction, making inference, hypothesis testing and generalization.Condition-oriented theories: emphasize the nature of the human and physical context in which language learning takes place, such as the number of students, the kind of input learners receives, and the atmosphere.Behaviorist theory, the idea of this method is that language is learned by constant repletion and the reinforcement of the teacher. Mistakes were immediately corrected, and correct utterances were immediately praised.Cognitive theory,language is not a form of behavior, it is an intricate rule-based system and a large part of language acquisition is the learning of this system. Constructivist theory,believes that learningis a process in which the learner constructs meaning based on his/her own experiences and what he/she already knows. Socio-constructivist theory, similar to constructivist theory, socio-constructivist theory emphasizes interaction and engagement with the target language in a social context based on the concept of “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD) and scaffolding.Ethic devotion, professional qualities and personal stylesCLT: communicative language teachingTBLT: task-based language teachingThe goal of CLT is to develop students’ communicative competence, which includes both the knowledge about the language and the knowledge about how to use the language appropriately in communicative situations. P16Hedge discusses five main components of communicative competence: linguistic competence, pragmatic competence, discourse competence, strategic competence, and fluency.Howatt proposes a weak and a strong version of CLT.Weak version: learners first acquire language as a structural system and then learn how to use it in communication. --- the weak version regards overt teaching of language forms and functions as necessary means for helping learners to develop the ability to use them for communication. Strong version: language is acquired through communication. The learners discover the structural system in the process of leaning how to communicate.---regards experiences of using the language as the main means or necessary conditions for learning a language as they provide the experience for learners to see how language is used in communication. Communicative activities: P24Tasks are activities where the target language is used by the leaner for acommunicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.Four components of a task: a purpose, a context, a process, and a productTasks focus on the complete act of communication. (Purposeful & contextualized communication). Exercises focus the students’ attention on the individual aspects of language, such as vocabulary, grammar or individual skills. (Focus on individual language items)Exercise-task comes halfway between tasks and exercises, consists of contextualized practice of language item.PPP: for teaching a new structure-based lesson, content lesson, presentation (introduces new vocabulary and grammatical structures), practice (the lesson moves from controlled practice to guided practice and exploitation of the texts when necessary) and production (the students are encouraged to use what they are learned and practiced to perform communicative tasks)The importance of lesson planning: 1. an unprepared teacher begins of a disastrous lesson.2. An unprepared teacher receives less trust and cooperation from the students.3. The students are different, the time is different, and the mood is different.Lesson Planning: is a framework of a lesson in which teachers make advance decisions about what they hope to achieve and how they would like to achieve it. In other words, teachers need to think about the aims to be achieved, materials to be covered, activities to be organized, and techniques and resources to be used in order to achieve the aims of the lesson.Principles for good lesson planning: aim, variety, flexibility, learnability, and linkage.Variety: planning a number of different types of activities and wherepossible, introducing students to a wide selection of materials so that learning is always interesting, motivating and never monotonous for the students.Flexibility: preparing some extra and alternative tasks and activities at the class does not always go according to the plan so that teachers always have the option to cope with the unexpected situations rather than being the slaves of written plans or one methodology.Learnability: within capability of the students, not be too easy or beyond or below the students’ cop ing ability.Linkage: easy task followed by a comparatively difficult one, or doa series of language-focused activities to get the students prepared linguistically. Components of a lesson planning: background information, teaching aims, language content and skills, stages and procedures, teaching aids, assigXXXents, and teacher’s after-lesson reflection. For skill-oriented lesson, focusing on developing skills, the modelis applicable---pre-(reading), while-, post-. (Pre-step, while-step, post-step) Classroom management is the way teachers organize what goes on in the classroom.The role of the teacher: controller, assessor (evaluator, correcting mistakes and organizing feedback), organizer (organize and design task that students can perform in the class), prompter推动者(give appropriate prompts and give hints), participant, resource-provider, teacher’s new roles.There are rules to follow for making instructions effective.●The first is to use simple instructions and make them suit the comprehensive levelof the students.●The second rule is to use the mother-tongue only when it is necessary.●Give students time to get used to listening to English instructionsand help themake an effort to understand them.●Use body language to assist understanding and stick to it each time you teach theclass.Student grouping: whole class group—same activity at the same rhythm and pace, lockstep, pair work, group work, individual studyDiscipline: refers to a code of conduct which binds a teacher and a group of students together so that learning can be more effective.Questioning in the classroom:Classification of question types: 1.closed questions and open questions 2.display questions and genuine questions 3.lower-order questions and higher-order questions 4.taxonomyClosed questions refer to those with only one s ingle correct answer while open questions may invite many different answers.Display questions are those that the answers are already known to the teacher and they are used for checking if students know the answer, too. Genuine questions are questions which are used to find out new information and since they often reflect real context, they are more communicative. Lower-order questions refer to those that simple require recalling of information or memorization of facts while higher order questions require more reasoning, analysis, and evaluation.Simple question and difficult questionA mistake refers to a performance error that is either a random guess or an “a slip of tongue”, it’s a failure performance to a known system.An error has direct relation with the learners’ language competence. Results from Lack of knowledge in the target language. Language error cannot be self-corrected no matter how much attention is paidDealing with spoken errors: tasks or activities are focusing onaccuracy or fluency. Balance between accuracy-based activities and fluency-based activities..When to correct: fluency work---not to interrupt, after the student’s performance; accuracy work---need to intervene moreHow to correct: direct teacher correction, indirect teacher correction,self-correction, peer correction, whole class correction.Goal of teaching pronunciation:Consistency: the pronunciation should be smooth and naturalIntelligibility: the pronunciation should be understandable t o the listeners Communicative efficiency: the pronunciation should help convey the meaning that is intended by the speaker.Aspects of pronunciation: besides sounds and phonetic symbols, such as stress (strong and weak form, word stress and sentencestress),intonation and rhythm (variation).Perception practice: using minimal pairs, which order, same or different? Odd and out, Completion.Production practice: listen and repeat, fill the blanks, make up sentences, use meaningful context, use picture, use tongue twisters. Grammar presentation: The deductive method, the inductive method, the guided discovery methodGrammar practice: mechanical practice and meaningful/ communicative practice.Mechanical practice: involves activities that are aimed at form accuracy. Students pay repeated attention to a key element in a structure. Substitution drill and transformation drills.Meaningful practice: focus on the production, comprehension or exchange of meaning though the students keep an eye on the way newly learned structures are used in the process. It comes after mechanicalpractice. (Comparatives and superlatives). Using picture prompts, using mimes or gestures as prompts, using information sheet as prompts, using key phrases or key words as prompts, using chained phrases for story telling, using created situations.What does knowing a word involve? Denotative meaning; connotative meaning; chunk/collocations; synonyms, antonyms and hyponyms; receptive and productive vocabulary.Denotative meaning of a word or a lexical item refers to those words that we use to label things as regards real objects, such as a name or a sign, etc. in the physical world. Primary meaning of a word.A connotative meaning of a word refers to the attitudes or emotions of a language user in choosing a word and the influence of these on the listener or reader’s in terpretation of the word.Collocations refer to words that co-occur with high frequency and have been accepted as ways for the use of words. For instance, see, look at, watch.Hyponyms refer to words which can be grounded together under the same superordinate concept.Receptive/passive vocabulary refers to words that one is able to recognize and comprehend in reading or listening but unable to use automatically in speaking or writing. Those words that one is not only able to recognize but also able to use in speech and writing are considered as one’s productive/active vocabulary.Ways of presenting vocabulary: inductive and deductive.Ways of consolidating vocabulary: labeling; spot the difference; describe and draw; play a game; use words series; word bingo; word association; finding synonyms and antonyms; categories; using word net-work; using the internet resources for more ideas.Developing vocabulary learning strategies: review regularly, guessmeaning from context, organize vocabulary effectively, use a dictionary, and manage strategy use. Principles and models for teaching listening: focus on process, combine listening with other skills (listening can be practice with not-taking, and answers, role plays, retelling, interviewing, discussions, or a writing task), focus on the comprehension of meaning, grade difficulty level appropriately, principles for selecting and using listening activities.Two approaches are frequently used to describe different processes of listening. Bottom-up model and Top-down model.Bottom-up model: 从细节入手start with sound and meaning recognitions. Listeners construct meaning of what they hear based on the sound they hear, expect the listeners have a very effective short-term memory as they have to make sense of every sound in order to figure out the meaning of words, phrase, and structures. If there are unfamiliar sounds, listeners will find it very difficult to keep up with speaker. ---recognizing sounds of words, phrases or structures.Top-down model: 着重概要listening for gist and making use of the contextual clues and background knowledge to construct meaning are emphasized. Listeners can understand better if they already have some knowledge in their mind about the topic. Such knowledge is also termed as prior knowledge or schematic knowledge---mental frameworks for various things and experience we hold in our long-term memory. ---referring meaning from broad contextual clues and background knowledge. Three teaching stages: pre-listening—warming up; while-listening---listening comprehension; post-listening---checking answers.Teaching speakingLess complex syntax, short cuts, incomplete sentences, devices such as fillers, hesitation device to give time to thinking before speaking, false start, spontaneous, time-constraint.Types of speaking: pre-communicative activities—mechanical activities; communicative activities---meaningful activities.Controlled activities, semi-controlled activities, communicative activities:Information-gap activities; dialogues and role-plays; activities using pictures; problem-solving activities; change the story; human scrabbleOrganizing speaking tasks: use small group workTeaching readingThe construction of meaning from a printed or written message.Two broad levels in the act reading.1). A recognition task of perceiving visual signals from the printed page through the eyes.2). A cognitive task of interpreting the visual information revealing the received information with the reader’s own general knowledge, and reconstructing the meaning that the writer had meant to convey.For teaching: intensive/extensive readingIn terms of methods: skimming/scanning/predictingFor reading practice: reading aloud/silent readingThe role of vocabulary in reading: sight vocabulary: words that oneis able to recognize immediately are often referred to as sight vocabulary. Principles and models for teaching reading: bottom-up model; top-down model; interactive modelPre-reading activities: predicting (predicting based on the tile/ based on vocabulary/based on the T/F questions) setting the scene, skimming, and scanningWhile-reading activities: TD (a transition device)Reading comprehension questions: 1. questions of literal comprehension 2. Questions involving reorganization or reinterpretation3. Questions for inference (what is implied but not explicitly stated)4. questions for evaluation or appreciation (making judgment about what the writer is trying to do and how successful he/she is in achieving his/her purpose)5. Questions for personal response Intensive reading is an accuracy-oriented activity involving reading for detail; the main purpose is to learn language embedded in the reading texts, which are usually short. Extensive reading is a fluency activity. The main purpose is to achieve global understanding. Te reading texts usually contains less new vocabulary and is longer than those intended for intensive reading. Teaching writingWriting for consolidating language, writing for communication, between writing for learning and writing for communication, imagination Not have a real communicative purpose; for language skill; a little bit communicative; communicative approach; neither restrictions in contents nor in word limit; more communicative; more motivatedCA: communication approach第11页/共11页。

归纳演绎推理英文作文英文：Inductive and deductive reasoning are two types of logical reasoning that are commonly used in various fields such as science, mathematics, and philosophy. Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that involves making generalizations based on specific observations or examples. It is a bottom-up approach that starts with specific examples and then draws a general conclusion. For example, if I observe that all the swans I have seen are white, I might conclude that all swans are white.On the other hand, deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that involves starting with a general principle or premise and then using it to draw a specific conclusion. It is a top-down approach that starts with a general principle and then applies it to specific cases. For example, if I know that all mammals have hair, and I also know that a dog is a mammal, then I can deduce that the doghas hair.Both types of reasoning have their strengths and weaknesses. Inductive reasoning is useful when we want to make predictions based on past observations, but it is not always reliable because it is based on a limited number of observations. Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is useful when we want to draw conclusions that are necessarily true if the premises are true, but it is not always applicable because the premises may not be true.In conclusion, both inductive and deductive reasoning are important tools for logical thinking and problem-solving. By using these two types of reasoning, we can make better decisions and draw more accurate conclusions.中文：归纳演绎推理是逻辑推理的两种常见类型，广泛应用于科学、数学和哲学等领域。

Inductive and DeductiveReasoning(文档可以直接使用，也可根据实际需要修改使用,可编辑欢迎下载）Critical ThinkingExcerpted from :// /depts/itl/7/index.htmlInductive and Deductive ReasoningMany people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guessthis next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too.Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down.Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball.As you can see, the difference between inductive and deducative reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed. Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively.Even so, it is important to recognize whether the form of an argument is inductive or deductive, because each requires different sorts of support. Adham's inductive argument, above, is supported by his previous observations, while Rizik's deductive argument is supported by his reference to the law of gravity. Thus, Adham could provide additional support by detailing those observations, without any recourse to books or theories of physics, while Rizik could provide additional support by discussing Newton's law, even if Rizik himself had never seen a ball kicked.The appropriate selection of an inductive or deductive format for a specific first steps toward sound argumentation.Introduction to InductionAs covered in the section on Inductive and Deductive Reasoning, inductive arguments are usually based on experience or observation. In effect, then, inductive arguments are all comparisons between two sets of events, ideas, or things; as a result, inductive arguments are sometimes called analogical arguments. The point of those comparisons, or analogies, is to establish whether the two sets under consideration, similar in a number of other ways, are also similar in the way of interest to the argument. Consider this example:Mariko says, "Every time I've seen a red-tinted sunset, the next day's weather has been beautiful. Today had a red-tinted sunset, so tomorrow will be beautiful."Essentially, Mariko is comparing one set of events (observed red-tinted sunsets and each following day's weather) with another (today's observed sunset and tomorrow's predicted weather). These sets are similar in an important way (red-tinted sunsets), and the inductive argument is that they will also be similar in another way (nice weather on the following day). In this case, Mariko is arguing from particular cases in the past to a particular case in the present and future, but she could also argue inductively from those particular cases to a general one, such as "It's always beautiful the day after a red-tinted sunset."The strength of such an argument depends in large part on three of its elements:1. how accurate and comprehensive the previous observations are;2. how strong the causal link seems to be;3. how similar the two cases are.In Mariko's argument, to satisfy the first element, we would want to be sure that she's seen many such sunsets, and that "redness" and "beauty" have been judged consistently. To satisfy the second, we would want to feel confident that there is a strong correlation between weather patterns on successive days. To satisfy the third, we would want to know whether there are any significant differences between the observation of today's sunset and of the previous ones. A difference in season, a difference in geographical or topographical location, a difference in climate, or any other significant variation might affect the comparability of the two sets of observations.In fact, we should always understand the second premise of an inductive argument to contain a claim like "there is otherwise no significant difference." The second premise of Mariko's argument, then, might read, "Today's sunset was red-tinted (and there were no significant differences between this and previous red-tinted sunsets)." Keeping such a disclaimer in mind is important, because this is where many inductive arguments are weakest.Because we argue inductively from the particular to the general, such arguments are often called generalizations, or inductive generalizations. Other kinds of arguments with a similar format include causal arguments.Exercises for Induction1. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by inductive reasoning?Your first quiz grade usually indicates how you will do in the course.The final exam accounts for 30% of the course grade.Late papers will not be accepted.Gravity's Rainbow is required reading in your course.2. Every time Jorge has seen a baseball game between the Giants and the Dodgers at Candlestick Park, the Giants have won. Tomorrow, the Giants play the Dodgers at Candlestick. Which of the following is least significant when arguing that the Giants will win tomorrow?Jorge has only seen the Giants play the Dodgers twice.Both teams have many new players.Jorge won't be going to the game tomorrow.The field at Candlestick will be unusually muddy tomorrow.Introduction to Causal ArgumentsOne of the most important uses for inductive reasoning is to argue causation. Consider the following example:A bicyclist moves into the traffic lane in order to pass a truck illegally parked in the bike lane. The driver of a car approaching from the rear slams on her brakes in order to avoid hitting the bicycle. A following car fails to stop in time, and smashes into the back of the first. The insurance companies disagree about who should be held responsible, and they go to court to decide who caused the accident.What arguments are likely to be made in court? The bicyclist's lawyer will probably claim that the illegally parked truck caused her client to swerve into the lane of traffic. The lawyer for the driver of the first car will probably claim that the bicyclist's actions caused her client to slam on the brakes. The lawyer for the second driver will probably claim that the first car's sudden stop caused his client to smash into its back. None of these claims seems to fit the pattern of an inductive argument, because none of them seems based on observation or experience. But, in fact, they do fit that pattern. The bicyclist's lawyer, for example, is actually arguing that:•Normally the bicyclist would have continued in the bike lane, but in this instance he swerved into the lane of traffic.•The only significant difference between "normally" and "in this case" is the presence of the illegally parked truck.•Therefore, the truck caused the bicyclist to swerve.The lawyers for the drivers are making similar arguments: the first, that the only significant difference was the swerving bicycle; and the second, that the only significant difference was the suddenly braking car. Like inductive reasoning, then, these causal arguments are based on observed instances. (In this case, no observations are needed to convince us that the bicyclist would not normally have swerved or the first driver would not normally have braked suddenly. But if, for some reason, observations were necessary, we could design a study of automobile and bicycle traffic on that street, or survey drivers and bicyclists about their experiences, or in other ways provide evidence to verify the part of the premise describing the normal pattern of traffic.These causal arguments, then, follow the form of an inductive argument with one important exception: whereas an inductive argument carries as part of its second premise the implication that there is otherwise no significant difference, these causal arguments carry the implication that there is only one significant difference: for the bicyclist, the truck; for the first driver, the bicycle; for the second driver, the first car.How can we know that there is really only one significant difference? In real-life situations, we cannot usually be certain of that, since the world in which we live is a very complicated and intricate place. If, however, there is a strong likelihood of causation and there are no other apparent causes in evidence, then the argument will seem convincing. Two rules to remember in dealing with causation are:1. The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect beforethe cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation. One the other,arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause are examples offallacious post hoc reasoning.2. Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for sucha strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is thecause of both the original "cause" and its purported "effect."In the trial, for example, the second driver's lawyer could not argue that his client hit the first car because the first car stopped suddenly if reverse causation, post hoc reasoning, or a common cause is found. An example of reverse causation would be that the accident occurred before the first car began to stop, and it only came to a sudden stop because it was hit. An example of post hoc reasoning would be that the only connection between the stopping and the accident is that the car stopped first (say, Tuesday), and the accident happened later (say, Thursday). An example of a common cause would be that the reason the first car stopped suddenly and the reason that the second car hit it are the same: they were both side-swiped by a large recreational vehicle.But what if, as the trial progresses, evidence is introduced to show that the bicyclist has a history of causing accidents by swerving in front of cars, or that the first driver has been involved in several accidents in which she caused her brakes to lock, or that the second driver was speeding and the street was slick? Such information could lead to very different causal arguments, where the implied claim does not concern "the only significant difference," but rather "the only significant commonality." The bicyclist's lawyer might argue, for example, that her client's swerving may have caused the first driver to brake suddenly, but that the accident was caused by the way in which the first driver hit the brakes, and that she has caused similar accidents that way in the past. The first driver's lawyer, on the other hand, might argue that the accident was caused not by her client's braking, but by the second driver's unsafe speed, and the slick condition of the road, and that these factors have often caused other accidents. Both lawyers would be using a causal argument based on "the only significant commonality."Often, complex causal arguments use a mixture of "difference" and "commonality" reasoning, to show that the proposed cause is the only significant difference in cases where the effect did not occur, and the only significant commonality in cases where the effect did occur.The strength of a causal argument, then, relies on three factors:1. how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is (for example, do we think thatthere is a basic similarity in most respects between the circumstances of this accident and those of the many other times bicycles and cars have traveled on this street safely;2. how likely the case for causation seems to be (for example, do we think that a bicycleswerving into an car's lane can cause an accident?);3. how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is(for example, do we believe that the illegally parked truck is the only significant differencebetween this case and the many other times bicycles and cars went down that street without an accident?).Introduction to DeductionAs we explain in the Introduction to Induction and Deduction, an argument is inductive if its major premise is based on observation or experience, and deductive if its major premise is based on a rule, law, principle, or generalization. In general, there are two distinct ways of expressing a deductive argument: as a syllogism, or as a conditional. Any deductive argument can be expressed as either a syllogism or a conditional, though some arguments may seem to lend themselves more naturally to one form or the other. Similarly, tests for the validity of syllogisms and conditionals may appear quite different, but do essentially the same thing.Syllogisms: The major premise of a syllogism states that something, Y, is or is not true for all or part of some group, X; the minor premise affirms or denies that some group or individual, Z, is part of X; and the argument then concludes whether that thing Y (from the major premise) is true or not true for that group or individual Z (from the minor premise). One form of a syllogism can be expressed by the following paradigm:All X are YZ is XTherefore, Z is YConsider the following example:Everyone in class today received instructions for writing the essay. Mandia was in class today. Therefore, Mandia received instructions for writing the essay.You might think that "everyone in class today received instructions for the essay" sounds like an observation, but it is a generalization: no observer is identified, and no process of observation is recounted. By using a generalization, we focus attention more directly on the truth of an assertion (and less on the manner of its verification); this is especially effective when the generalization is widely accepted, or when there is strong evidence to support it.We can restate the argument as follows:[Major:] "Receiving instructions" is true for all of the group "in class today."[Minor:] "Mandia" is a member of the group "in class today."[Conclusion:] "Receiving instructions" is true for "Mandia."Notice that, twice, the phrase in the original example, "received instructions for writing the essay," became in the restatement, "receiving instructions." There are two reasons for this. First, a restatement of an argument should eliminate or shorten unnecessary terms, to make the argument more comprehensible. Here, we shortened "instructions for writing the essay" to "instructions"; if significant, the phrase's original form can be resubstituted in the conclusion.Second, in order to avoid confusion, it is always best to use a state-of-being verb (for example, forms of the verb "to be") in the restatement of an argument, and convert the original verbs to other parts of speech. In this case, "received" has become a participial phrase, "receiving instructions," that functions asa noun.Conditionals: The other common form of a deductive argument, a conditional, expresses that same reasoning in a different way. The major premise is, If something is true of P, then something is true of Q. The minor premise either affirms that it is true of P, or denies that it is true of Q. In the former case, the argument concludes that the something is true of Q; in the latter, that something is not true of P. One form of a conditional is expressed by the following paradigm:If P then QPTherefore, QThe above example could be given in the form of a conditional as follows:If Mandia was in class today, he received instructions for writing the essay. Mandia was in class. Therefore, he received instructions for writing the essay.In the form of the paradigm above, this conditional can be restated as follows:[Major:] If "in class" is true, then "received instructions" is true.[Minor:] "In class" is true.[Conclusion:] "Received instructions" must be true.Notice that a conditional seems to use only two terms (P and Q), while a syllogism uses three (X, Y, and Z). But the third term is actually there. In our example, it is Mandia who is "in class," and Mandia who "received instruction."Summary. Consider this example:Jerzy claims that all his test scores have been good, and so his course grade should be good, too.We can express that argument as a syllogism or a conditional:Syllogism:All good tests get good grades.Jerzy's are good tests. Therefore, Jerzy gets a good grade. --or--Conditional:If good tests, then good grades.Good tests.Therefore, good grade.These two arguments reach the same conclusion, and their minor premises are similar, but their major premises appear to be rather different. In fact, "All good tests get good grades" and "If good test then good grade" are just two ways of expressing a relationship between good test scores and good course grades.Exercise on Deductive ArgumentsWhich of the following would make the best major premise for a deductive argument?No one has ever seen a ghost.There are no ghosts.Ghosts are the products of over-active imaginations.Scientific study has proven that there are no ghosts.Introduction to Fallacious AppealsWe often make legitimate appeals in support of arguments. For example, to support a statement about the relationship between energy and mass, Danielle might appeal to Albert Einstein's theories as an authoritative source. To support a claim dealing with guns and gun control, Janelle might appeal to the Bill of Rights. And to support an argument on immigration, Claudelle might appeal to the humanity or generosity of her audience. As long as Einstein is an authority on Danielle's topic, as long as the Bill ofRights deals with Janelle's topic, and as long as the generosity of her audience is directly related to Claudelle's topic, each of these appeals would be perfectly acceptable.However, what if Danielle had appealed to Einstein as an authority on rap music, or if Janelle had used the Bill of Rights to support a claim about which store has the best prices, or if Claudelle had appealed to the generosity of the judges in evaluating her performance in gymnastics? We would probably have a puzzled reaction, since these appeals would seem to have little or nothing to do with the claims they were used to support.The problem is that fallacious appeals are not always as obvious as these last three, and it necessary for the critical thinker to determine, in each case, whether an appeal is appropriate or not. Generally speaking, fallacious appeals can be divided into two groups: misdirected appeals and emotional appeals. In a misdirected appeal, an otherwise legitimate appeal is misapplied by being used to support an unrelated claim. Danielle's use of Einstein, who was an authority but not on rap music, and Janelle's use of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees some things but not which store has the best prices, are examples of misdirected appeals.By itself, an emotional appeal is never a legitimate strategy in an argument, because it is based on emotions rather than verifiable or evaluative support. Claudelle's appeal to the generosity of her audience in an argument about immigration, for example, would be appropriate as long as she was discussing that generosity as a value related to the subject. However, an appeal to the generosity of the judges at a gymnastic meet is merely a play on their emotions (probably an appeal to their pity); anyway, the value of generosity has nothing to do with the evaluations the judges would render. Thus, Claudelle's appeal to the judges' generosity would be a fallacious emotional appeal.The following are some of the most common fallacious appeals. Popular variations on the names are listed following the link.Misdirected AppealsAppeal to Authority, or Appeal to Questionable AuthorityAppeal to Common Belief, or Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Popular BeliefAppeal to Common Practice, or Appeal to TraditionTwo Wrongs Make a RightAppeal to Indirect Consequences, or Slippery Slope, Domino TheoryAppeal to Wishful ThinkingEmotional AppealsAppeal to Fear, or Scare Tactics, Appeal to ForceAppeal to Loyalty, or Peer Pressure, Bandwagon, Ad PopulumAppeal to Pity, or Sob StoryAppeal to Prejudice, or Appeal to StereotypesAppeal to Spite, or Appeal to Hatred, Appeal to IndignationAppeal to Vanity, or Apple PolishingAppeal to Authority. Ideally, we reach our decisions by reviewing information and arguments, and coming to our own conclusions. But because knowledge is very specialized, none of us has the time and ability necessary to understand fully all the fields in which we need to make informed decisions. As a result, we often rely on the opinions of experts--people who have the knowledge necessary to evaluate very specialized information. In accepting or rejecting expert opinion, we usually forgo some or all of the usual analysis of evidence and claims, relying on the expert's explanations or evaluations of the material for us. Obviously, then, we need to be confident of the expertise of the individual on whom we are relying.As the name suggests, a misdirected appeal to authority usually cites some person or thing (a book, for example) as a source to be trusted on a subject, when in fact that person or thing is not authoritative on that specific subject. As a result, this fallacy is also known as an appeal to questionable authority. Onecommon way to make such an illegitimate appeal more persuasive is to appeal to a recognized authority on a matter outside the area of that authority's expertise.Celebrity endorsements of commercial products or political positions are often used as fallacious appeals to authority. Just because a person is successful or knowledgeable in one area--say, acting, music, or sports--is no reason to accord his or her claims or opinions added weight in an unrelated area--such as health care, diet, or investments. There is nothing wrong with using a celebrity to attract attention to a cause or product, but the decision about whether the product or cause is indeed worthwhile should be made without regard to the celebrity endorsement.ExerciseWhich of the following is probably not a fallacious appeal to authority?I'm becoming a vegetarian. I.B. Singer said it is the ethical thing to do, and he won the Nobel Prize!I'm buying a Bumpster mountain bike. My critical thinking instructor says they're the best, and she is so logical!I'm going to see that new movie. My best friend said it was very good, and we always like the same things!I'm practicing safe sex. My accountant said it's important, and he was honored as the San Jose CPA of the year.Emotional Appeals. Emotional appeals all have two things in common:1. They attempt to elicit an emotional response that will serve as the basis of any decision made,instead of presenting an argument and relying on its soundness.2. As a result, they are never acceptable in an argument, though they can be quite effective inarousing non-rational responses.Fallacious appeals to emotions are effective because it's easier for most people not to think critically, but to rely on their gut reaction; and it's easier for the person making the appeal to excite his listeners' emotions than to construct a persuasive argument. As a result, those who try to persuade us most often--politicians and advertisers-- tend to rely on emotional appeals in order to motivate us to do things that we might not for purely rational reasons.Fallacious appeals can target almost any emotion, but some are more common than others. In this section, we will be focusing on seven different ones: appeals to fear, loyalty, pity, prejudice, spite, and vanity, and the special case of sex appeal.Appeal to Fear. Fear and love are two of the strongest emotions, and this sort of non-rational persuasion is usually designed to tap into both of them, by threatening the safety or happiness of ourselves or someone we love. As a result, it's often called scare tactics or appeal to force because the threats of force are intended to scare us into agreement or action. Consider the following appeals:"Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but if you give me a ticket, I'll have to call myfriend the mayor and have a long talk.""Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but if you give me a ticket, you better makesure your family is in a really safe place.""Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but if you even start to give me a ticket, I'mgoing to shoot you with this gun."Notice that the first threat is the most veiled, carried in the implication that the speaker has a powerful friend that can adversely affect the officer's career. The second threat is also veiled--the speaker never says he or she will do anything, and in some situations the advice to ensure the safety of one's family might be considered downright neighborly. But the second appeal is, in other ways, more powerful than the first, because it threatens the officer's family with violence. The threat in the third example is so direct--the speaker has apparently pulled a gun on the officer--that it might not be considered a fallacy at all. Certainly caution would be the best response in each of these cases but, generally speaking, most of the threats encountered in critical thinking are less direct and less violent than these examples.Remember that, while all appeals to fear involve negative outcomes, not all negative outcomes necessarily derive from fallacies. When the doctor tells you to change your diet or you'll die young, and when the dentist tells you to floss better or you will lose your teeth, they are probably not engaging in a fallacious appeal to fear. Instead, they are explaining to you the demonstrable consequences of your actions, not as a threat but as information upon which they hope you will act.Appeal to Loyalty. Since humans are social beings, one of our strongest emotions involves attachment to a group, and there are several different ways to appeal to that emotion. One is the general appeal to loyalty, which operates on the notion that one should act in concert with (what is claimed to be) thegroup's best interests, regardless of the merits of the particular case being argued. Chauvinistic slogans, like "My country, right or wrong," are good examples of this sort of non-rational emotionalism, and such appeals are often known by the Latin name for this fallacy, ad populum, meaning that it is direct "to the people." But appeal to loyalty can utilize one's attachment to things other than a country, because we also feel loyalty to our friends and family, schools, cities and towns, teams, favorite authors and musicians,and so on.A variant on the appeal to loyalty is the fallacious use of peer pressure. In this case, one's agreement is sought, not on the basis of what is good for the group as in appeal to loyalty, but on the basis of what others in that group would or do think. Peer pressure, then, usually requires a closer relationship with the group connection being exploited than does appeal to loyalty, though both involve the (often implicit) knowledge of what is expected by the group. Bandwagon, another variant of appeal to loyalty, is different because it doesn't involve that knowledge of what action is expected by the group. Instead, "getting onthe bandwagon" is an expression which indicates that an individual has willingly begun to support agroup's goals or arguments or beliefs, merely to be part of a large group, especially if its members are perceived as somehow successful or "winners." Thus, voting for someone because you've read or heard that candidate was by far the most popular, or supporting a ballot initiative because you've read or heard it was supposed to pass overwhelmingly, is an example of bandwagon.Consider these three examples:"Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but we cops have to stick together.""Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but what would they say about you down at the stationhouse if they knew you were giving out tickets to other cops?""Gosh, officer, I know I made an illegal left turn, but you've got to get with the program.Everyone else lets other cops off with just a warning.""Sticking together," in the first example, rather than reaching a conclusion based on the merits of the case, shows how appeal to loyalty works. Wondering what others will think, especially those in a defined group who are in close contact with you, is an example of peer pressure. Finally, doing something because everyone else is doing it is an example of bandwagon. Notice, incidentally, that bandwagon differs from the misdirected appeal to common practice, in that common practice's "everyone is doing it" is given as the reason why the thought or action is proper, but in the bandwagon fallacy there is no necessity for the thought or action to be considered proper, only that the individual would think or do it in order to become part of that large group.Appeal to Pity. A fallacious appeal to pity, also known as a sob story, is different from a simple (and perfectly legitimate) appeal to pity in one significant way: it is used to replace logic, rather than to support it. As far as critical thinking goes, it can be perfectly legitimate for someone to say, "Please give me some money to buy food. I haven't eaten in days." Certainly, this would be an appeal to pity, but as long as the appeal is made in such a way as not to preclude logical consideration of the situation (such as whether the request is appropriate for the problem, whether you can reasonably afford or provide whatever is requested, and so on), it need not be fallacious. When the fallacy does occur, it is usually exhibits either a greatly exaggerated problem or an inappropriate request. Most of all, however, a fallacious appeal to pity uses emotion in place of reason to persuade. Consider these examples:。

inductive和deductive语法教学
Inductive 和 deductive 是两种常见的语法教学方法。

Inductive grammar teaching（归纳法语法教学）是一种让学生通
过观察和分析大量的语言实例，自行归纳出语法规则的教学方法。

教
师提供各种语言材料，让学生自己发现和总结出其中的语法规则。

这
种方法强调学生的主动性和自主性，有助于培养学生的观察能力和分
析能力。

Deductive grammar teaching（演绎法语法教学）是一种教师先
直接讲解语法规则，然后让学生通过练习来应用这些规则的教学方法。

教师首先明确地陈述语法规则，然后提供相关的练习，让学生在实践
中加深对规则的理解和记忆。

这种方法能够帮助学生快速掌握语法规则，但可能会使学生在理解和应用上缺乏灵活性。

inductive 和deductive 两种语法教学方法各有优缺点，教师可以根据学生的特点和教学目标选择合适的方法，或者结合使用两种方法，以达到更好的教学效果。