Look at the photo above. Which one is better for learning? The teacher telling the secret of the mystery car OR the students studying the car and finding it out themselves?

The answer is at the very end of this article. Think carefully because it will reveal your attitude towards teaching grammar as well.

I know. Having studied English for many years at the university you are not supposed to lecture and shine with your knowledge in front of your class (= the deductive method). Let’s have a look at our options.

Why the inductive method? Because it forces the students to think hard. The more they crack their brains, the better they learn.

Earlier on we defined the two most common methods in teaching grammar:

“Most teachers know the term ’inductive method’ of teaching grammar, which means the formulation of the rules on the basis on examples. It is contrasted with the ’deductive method’ which means the teacher explaining the rules in detail and then letting the students practise and apply the rules. This is the easy way out in teaching grammar. The teacher thinks ’I taught you the rules and it is up to you to learn them. We need to move on.’ “

I will start by discussing ‘the inductive method’. In my opinion it is the one we can and should use in teaching nearly all grammatical points. The inductive method activates the students’ brains much better than the ‘deductive one’.

The advantages of using the inductive method

• First of all, students remember the rule better if they themselves have worked it out from the sample sentences given to them.
• Secondly, students become very motivated to solve the problem; it is a minor detective operation.
• Thirdly, every student is given time to try to figure out the rule if the process is slow, and proceeds step by step.
• The teacher can exercise his/her expertise in the matter by presenting the relevant questions when the rule is being formulated.
• In most cases the process can be carried out in English but in some classes it may be better to use the mother tongue to make sure everyone understands the rule.

How does the process advance in using the inductive method?

For the method to be effective it is advisable to more or less follow the steps given below and allow differentiation in the exercise types at Stage 5 if necessary.

Stage 1: Pre-task 1 Play a board game where the students throw a dice (or roll a pencil with 1-6 dots on it) and can move onwards if they remember the 3 forms of about 20 verbs, regular and irregular ones. N.B. Always make sure the foundation for the next task is solid: Some irregular verbs must be mastered for Stage 2.

Stage 2: Pre-task 2 Have a ‘Find someone who …’ task in order to make the students use the structure to be learnt many times. The structure to be learnt is The 2nd conditional.

What would you have done, if the school had been closed today?

Action	Name if ‘YES’
I would have gone swimming.
I and my friend would have played computer games.	Peter
Me and my dad would have eaten lunch together.	Jill
I would have written our home essay.
I would have slept a couple of hours more at home.	Shirley

Stage 3: Look at the examples below and work out the rule for the main clause and for the if-clause.

The main clause	The if-clause
I would have gone downtown	if the boss had given me the task.
My mum would have taken dad’s car	if it had been in the garage,
What do these two clauses have in common? (= KEY QUESTION!!) (would have + verb) How would you translate the clauses? ‘olisin mennyt’ ‘olisi ottanut’	What do these two if-clause have in common? (the pluperfect tense) How would you translate the clauses? ‘olisi antanut’ ‘olisi ollut’

Stage 4: Let’s formulate the rule for the 2nd conditional

The road to the formulation of the rule is clear if the students spot which pattern the sample clauses have in common.

The main clause	The if-clause
would have + 3rd form of the verb	the pluperfect tense = had + 3rd form of the verb
‘olisi tehnyt’	‘olisi tehnyt’

Now the Finnish students would notice that the Finnish language does not make any difference between the main and if-clauses and for them that is the point to bear in mind. In addition to the rules, of course. In other languages the situation may be different. In any case, comparison with the mother tongue is often very useful.

Stage 5: The if-clause can be in front of or after the main clause but do not reveal it to the students. Let them fall into the ‘trap’ when they do the first exercises and they will remember the application of the rule better.

Practice session; just like we have learnt before there should be 3 kinds of tasks for the sake of differentiation. The students will do i), ii) or iii) or all of them. See the samples below as a reminder!

i) A mechanical task (a gap filling exercise, isolated sentences with no context)

I don’t understand why you said nothing. I ___________________________ (tell) him the truth, if he __________________________ (ask) me anything about it.

Why did they not let us know they were not coming? If they _____________________ (call) us, we _________________________ (leave) the party immediately.

ii) Semi-communicative exercise (a realistic context but no freedom to write creatively and use the 2nd conditional forms)

There was a robbery at a local grocery store last week and three students are discussing what they would have done if they had been in the shop at that time.

Malcolm: I ______________________________ (hide) behind the shelves and if it _____________________________ (be) possible, I _________________________(call) the police quietly.

Anne: If I __________________________ (see) the robber, I _______________________ (write down) what they looked like and how they spoke.

Cary: I ______________________________ (try) to be quiet and I ______________________________ (take) photos from my hiding place. It _____________________________ (be) very dangerous, if the robber _______________________ (see) me doing it.

iii) A real communicative task (a realistic situation/context and freedom to be creative about the content)

There was a boat accident on a lake near your school yesterday and you are talking about it with your class mates. Write at least four things you would have done if you had been there and had seen what was going on. Include at least two if-clauses in your story.

How does the process advance in the deductive method?

The decuctive method is very easy to use but in my opinion should not be used too much since the students do not need to crack their brains very much when the teacher is explaining the rules.

There are, however, a couple of cases when the use of the deductive method is justifiable:

• The rules might be too complicated for the students to work out. (For example, changing ‘direct speech’ into ‘indirect speech’ includes far too many little details to be taken into account.
• Working out the rules might take far too much time.
• The class is not accustomed or able to formulate the rules, not even when it is done in the mother tongue.

If we look at the stages above, in the worst case a teacher in favour of the deductive method might skip Stages 1 – 3 altogether, explain the rules at Stage 4 and offer mere mechanical exercises in Stage 5.

All in all, hopefully you have now a better idea how modern CLT teachers deal with grammar and treat it as an essential part of foreign language learning.

The ‘car’ is not a real car at all but a piece of art in New York made mostly of recycled tyres.