An Inductive Approach to Young Learner Grammar

David E. Shaffer (Chosun University)

disin@chosun.ac.kr

I. Introduction
Much has appeared in the literature on second language acquisition and English language teaching
over the years on grammar instruction; however, its role in the EFL classroom is still controversial. In the
test-driven environment of Korea, explicit grammar teaching holds a prominent and pivotal role for
English instructional purposes. This paper looks at grammar from a pedagogical perspective and considers
its actual teachability. Can English grammar be taught with the goal being acquisition of that grammar? If
it can, how can it be most effectively presented, and how can it be most effectively presented for the
young learner?

II. The Literature

The question of whether or not grammar should be taught has been persistently debated in the fields
of language pedagogy and second language acquisition (Mohamed, 2004). Nassaji and Fotos (2004) argue
that this focus has been motivated in part by debates in the field of cognitive psychology over the role of
explicit verses implicit language learning and whether such learning occurs through conscious
manipulation of information or primarily through unconscious processes when people are exposed to
language input. The debate is represented by Krashen's (1982) distinction between conscious learning and
unconscious acquisition of language. He claims that language should not learned through formal
instruction and recommends that teachers concentrate on providing lots of comprehensible input so that
learners can acquire a second language naturally.
A serious problem with the Krashen claim, however, is that learners do not seem to master the
grammar of a second language even when they get plenty of comprehensible input (Ellis, 1997). Studies
of learners in immersion classrooms (e.g., Swain, 1985) have shown that even after ample exposure to the
target language learners continue to make a lot of grammatical errors. Furthermore, White (1987) argues
that some grammatical structures cannot be acquired through input alone and may require some direct
instruction. This lack of rule acquisition and an increasing concern for accuracy in learner language has
resulted in a reassertion of the role of grammar in syllabus design and the content of lessons, and to giving
increased explicit attention to grammatical forms and rules in many ESL environments (Hedge, 2000) and
to seemingly provide validation for the use of traditional methods of intensive, explicit grammar
instruction in EFL environments such as Korea.
Second language theorists and practitioners have long recognized a distinction between the explicit
knowledge about language that results from conscious, analytical reflection, and the implicit, intuitive
knowledge of language that underlies unplanned, real-time communication (Ellis, 2008). Although
explicit knowledge of grammatical rules does not guarantee corresponding changes to implicit
grammatical accuracy, research since the mid-1980s has suggested an indirect, but facilitative, role for
explicit knowledge in improving the rate and ultimate level of L2 attainment (Ellis, 1984, 2003, 2010;
Fotos, 1994; Gordon & Harshbarger, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2001, 2002; Lightbown & Spada, 2006;
Long 1991; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mitchell, 2000; Nunan, 1998; Rutherford, 1987; Rutherford & Smith,
1998; Schmidt, 1990, 1993; Schwartz, 1993; Thornbury, 1999).
 Currently, cognitive theory holds that explicit grammatical knowledge helps learners to notice L2
form-meaning relationships so that more input becomes intake for the implicit communicative system
(Schmidt, 2001; Gass, 2003). Explicit knowledge may also help learners monitor and modify L2 output so
that target-like communicative routines become automatized, or proceduralized, as implicit knowledge
(DeKeyser 2009; Paradis 2009). Sociocultural theory likewise ascribes importance to explicit knowledge,
as conscious awareness of grammatical concepts is said to mediate the internalization of L2
communication (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Wertsch (2007) suggests that such mediation may originate
externally – through work with instructional materials, teachers, or peers – or internally, as the learner
uses a culturally influenced repertoire of words, concepts, and assumptions for reasoning. Thus, although
explicit knowledge may not directly lead to implicit acquisition, a growing cross-theoretical consensus
envisions a supportive role for overt grammatical analysis within communicative second language
instruction.
Consequently, considerable discussion has centered on optimal approaches to developing learners’
explicit grammatical knowledge. DeKeyser (2003) explains that explicit instruction may range from
purely deductive, where teachers present rules followed by examples, to purely inductive, where learners
themselves analyze examples to derive rules. The former represents an expedient approach common in L2
classrooms, whereas the latter, though still less common, is supported by theorists who value the greater
“depth of processing” that is believed to result (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Oded & Walters, 2001).
Instructional dichotomies aside however, the bottom line for acquisition is whether the resulting explicit
knowledge is of sufficient quality to edit, monitor, and mediate L2 communication.

III. Consciousness-Raising and Tasks

Within cognitive theory, Ellis (2002a, 2003) and Thornbury (1997) propose “consciousness-raising tasks”
as a way to enhance the memorability and usefulness of explicit L2 knowledge. Sharwood Smith (1981)
argues that formal instruction serves as consciousness-raising and that tasks promote practice, which
uncontroversially leads to spontaneous performance. Such tasks constitute “guided induction” (see Herron,
& Tomasello, 1992), as they engage learner agency in analyzing L2 grammar while providing support
through task materials and teacher feedback. Their essential design involves isolating an L2 structure
within a larger text, directing learners’ attention to relevant tokens, and having the learners analyze and
explain the form–meaning relationships that they find. Ellis (2002a) maintains that this “intellectual
effort” (p. 168) increases the likelihood that learners will use their explicit knowledge to plan and organize
L2 utterances and notice the target form in subsequent L2 input.

1. Task-Based Grammar Instruction

As the cognitive processes of young learners are still in the developmental stages, the optimal balance
between learner agency and responsive instructional support will be different than that for older learners.
Young learner instruction must be developmentally appropriate (Linse, 2005). Earlier research pointed out
that young learners have a limited ability to make grammaticality judgments (see Ellis, 1991) and that
older young learners are more consistent and more accurate (Gleitman, Gleitman, & Shipley, 1972). In
addition, young learners also make fewer syntactic repairs than adults, but make more semantic repairs
than adults do. This led Ellis (2002b) to state that grammar teaching “should not be directed at beginners”
(p. 23). However, more recent research has shown that young children do develop metalinguistic
awareness at an early age and are able to express it (Gaux & Gombert, 1999; Gleitman, Gleitman, &
Shipley, 1972). Duran and Ramaut (2006) describe how task-based syllabuses can be designed so as to
promote early second language acquisition (at the beginner level), and Van Gorp and Bogaert (2006)
describe how primary school language lessons can be constructed around inductive tasks.
Exemplifying the task-based approach to teaching grammar are lessons that integrate the structural
and semantic properties of language and are situated in life-like communicative contexts. Well-suited
task-based activities for young learners are role plays, in which the teacher may choose to emphasize that
proper use of a particular language form is associated with certain language tasks performed in certain
situations.

2. Teaching Grammar with Writing

The combination of writing and grammar is beneficial for a number of reasons. First, written
language is different from oral speech in that the formal is not spontaneous. Thus, writing affords the
learner time to think and plan out their production. Second, and very importantly, writing affords the
learner time for monitoring their production, reviewing it, and making self-corrections. Third, in the
implementation of writing activities, the teacher can utilize scaffolds for the learner to use as a reference
to increase grammatical accuracy in their writing work. For example, the scaffolded writing activity below
provides the past tense of the verbs, which the learners are likely to have difficulty with (see My Trip to
Disneyland).

My Trip to Disneyland
I went to _______________ .
I saw __________________ .
I liked _________________ .

When grammar lessons are taught in conjunction with writing, the emphasis shifts away from a focus on
the learner’s syntactic and morphological errors to a focus that includes writing conventions such as
capitalization, punctuation, text organization, cohesion, and/or spelling.

3. The Story-Based Approach (PACE) for Grammar Instruction

Within sociocultural theory, Adair-Hauck et al. (2010) propose an instructional sequence called
“PACE” (a.k.a. the “Story-Based Approach”) that uses guided induction to strike an optimal balance
between instructional support and learner agency. Noting that deductive instruction excludes learners from
constructing grammatical knowledge, while pure induction leaves many ill-equipped to build such
knowledge independently, they propose dialogic rule formulation, where teachers and learners “co-
construct” an understanding of L2 forms. PACE (Presentation, Attention, Co-construction, Expansion)
thus involves first (a) “Presenting” target structures within a short narrative, and then (b) drawing learners’
“Attention” to them. Based on the patterns they find, the teacher and learners then (c) “Co-construct”
grammar rules, followed by (d) “Extension” tasks requiring the target form for communication (see Figure
1). This use of instructionally assisted reasoning to build and apply grammatical rules reflects Vygotsky’s
(1986) view of learning as the emerging ability to ‘regulate’ oneself and others through language.
The Story-Based Approach incorporates the concepts of consciousness raising and task-based
instruction along with teaching grammar through writing, and very importantly, incorporates a stage of
teacher-student co-construction of rules in its approach to grammar instruction. Because of its flexibility in
use with different proficiency levels and different age groups, the Story-Based Approach can easily be
applied to young learners for grammar instruction. Example activities for grammar instruction at the
various stages (PACE) of the Story-Based Approach are illustrated below.

FIGURE 1. Story-Based Approach (The PACE Model): A guided participatory approach to language
instruction. (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002)

1) Presentation Stage
During the Presentation stage, the teacher provides the students with exposure to the target language
item(s) within a meaningful, usually written, context. The context that the targeted item is presented in
may be a story, a poem, a nursery rhyme, a riddle, or even a picture caption that highlights the
grammatical phenomenon in a prominent manner. For example, the use of capitalization can be illustrated
as in the “poem” My Name Is below. The poem can be read aloud by the teacher, and later as choral
practice, with visual aids, graphics, and gestures to aid understanding.

My Name Is
My name is Penny. I have a penny.
My name is Lily. I have a lily.
My name is Robin. I have a robin.
My name is Mike. I have a mike.
My name is Billy. I have a billy goat.
My name is Clay. I play with clay.

As an example of a text for focusing on the pronouns his and her, the teacher-created poem below
inserts the confusable pair with a text discussing color preferences. Again, the poem can be read aloud by
the teacher, and later as choral practice, with visual aids, graphics, and gestures to aid understanding.
 She Likes Pink; He Likes Red
This is Penny. She likes pink.
This is Rod. He likes red.
This is Yelli. She likes yellow.
This is Blake. He likes blue.
This is Grace. She likes green.
This is Peter. He likes purple.

In the Presentation stage, emphasis is placed on understanding of the utterances, not on analyzing their
form. Presentation activities are most effective when the text and the activities accompanying them are
engaging and appealing to the learners.

2) Attention Stage
In the Attention stage, the emphasis is on drawing the learners’ attention to the target grammatical
point. Multiple exposures are provided by the teacher the teacher reading the text aloud, and through the
learners in drill work, choral work, team work, etc. Additional emphasis can be added to the targeted items
by loudness of voice, gestures, and visual aids. Role-play reading and other consciousness-raising
activities may be employed to direct focus on the teaching point. In the text, noticing can be facilitated by
the use of graphics, bold font, italicization, color font, large font, highlighting the focal text, and
highlighting the focal point graphically (Penny/penny; he/she). A combination of these may be employed
to heighten effect as done in the poem below:

She Likes Pink; He Likes Red

This is Penny. She likes pink.
This is Rod. He likes red.
This is Yelli. She likes yellow.
This is Blake. He likes blue.
This is Grace. She likes green.
This is Peter. He likes purple.

3) The Co-construction Stage

In the Co-construction stage of the Story-Based Approach, the emphasis is on the teacher working
together with the learners to facilitate the working out of their own understanding of grammar rules. In
this inductive approach, the teacher engages the learners through questions that encourage the learners to
form their own grammar rules: Why is there a dot after some words? Why does the story say “one hand”
but “two hands”? What is the difference between “walking” and “walked?” It is of critical importance that
the teacher does not provide the answers to the questions, allowing the learners to formulate their own
grammar rule. Once the rule has been formulated by the learners and expressed in student-teacher
dialogue, the teacher can consolidate and summarize the rule using conventional terminology (“big letters
are called capital letters”).

4) Extension Stage
The purpose of the final stage of the Story-Based Approach, the Extension stage, is to reinforce use
of the focused grammatical item through writing activities. These activities may be done individually or as
pair work. As with other writing activities, scaffolding can be used advantageously:

This is my _____________. ________ name is _________. ________ favorite color is ______.

family member his/her name his/her color

The amount of scaffolding employed can be adjusted to the learners’ proficiency level and can be
decreased as they become more familiar with the grammar points and writing conventions being focused
on. It is important that the Extension stage be given sufficient attention in compliance with the need for
adequate comprehensible output (Swain, 1985).

IV. Concluding Remarks

Within both cognitive and sociocultural second language learning theory, the current view is that
developing explicit knowledge of target second language forms is an important part of the long-term
process of building the implicit knowledge required to sustain real-time communication. The scaffolding
support of consciousness-raising (noticing, a guided induction technique), allows explicit grammar
instruction to can play a supportive role in the acquisition of the grammar of a second language, in
comparison to purely inductive methods. Task-based instruction has been shown to be effective in
introducing explicit grammar knowledge into a largely inductive system learning methodology at high and
low proficiency levels. In addition, writing tasks have been shown to be effective as they allow for learner
idea consolidation time, learner production monitoring time, and instructor scaffolding of activities. These
types of consciousness-raising activities have been shown to be effective in young learner as well as with
older age groups. Likewise, guided instruction, incorporating explicit instruction into a highly inductive
learning approach, has been shown to be effective in teaching young learners. Accordingly, it is here
proposed that the Story-Based Approach, which incorporated the main aspects of task-based instruction
and teaching grammar with writing, as well as teacher-student co-construction of grammar rules, be
adopted as an instructional feature of young learner English as a second language programs

References
Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (2002). The PACE Model: A story-based approach to meaning and form for
standards-based language learning. The French Review, 76, 265-296.
Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & Cumo-Johanssen P. (2010). Using a story-based approach to teach grammar (pp.
216-244). In J. L. Shrum & E. W. Glisan (Eds.), Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized foreign language
instruction (4th ed.). Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 311-348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J.
Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 119–38.
Duran, G., & Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing tasks at basic
proficiency levels (pp. 47-75). In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH
questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 138-155.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgment and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
13, 161-186.
Ellis, R. (1997). Becoming grammatical. Retrieved from the Pearson Education Web site:
http://impactseries.com/grammar/becoming.html.
Ellis, R. (2002a). Grammar teaching – Practice or consciousness raising? (pp. 167-174). In J. C. Richards & W. A.
Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002b). The place of grammar instruction in the Second/foreign language curriculum (pp. 17-34). In E.
Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah,
NJ: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). A study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2010). Does explicit grammar instruction work? National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics,
1, 3-22.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-
raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 224-256). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gaux, C., & Gombert, J. E. (1999). La conscience syntaxique chez les préadolescents: Question de méthode. Année
Psychologique, 99, 45-74.
Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., & Shipley, E. (1972). The emergence of the child as grammarian. Cognition, 1, 137-
164.
Gordon, T., & Harshbarger, S. (2002). The questions of grammar: The place of grammar in second language teacher
education. In D. Liu & P. Master (Eds.), Grammar teaching in teacher education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. EJ443084)
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar (pp. 251-266). In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a
second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of choice. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar
teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 103-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Linse, C. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, &
C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of forms in communicative
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case for foreign language
grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 281-303.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: A learner perspective. ELT Journal, 58, 228-237.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 101-109.
Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension. System, 29, 357–370.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Teaching and Learning. London: Longman.
Rutherford, W., & Smith, M. S. (1988). Consciousness raising and universal grammar. In W. Rutherford & M. S.
Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching. New York: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 11, 159-
168.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in
its development (pp. 235-256). In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing.” ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-
335.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Van Gorp, K., & Bogaert, N. (2006). Developing language tasks for primary and secondary education (pp. 76-105).
In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to
Vygotsky (pp. 178-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second language
competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.

Author
David E. Shaffer (PhD Linguistics) is a longtime resident and educator in Korea. He is a professor at
Chosun University, teaching in the undergraduate and graduate programs. Dr. Shaffer is the author of
books on English learning as well as Korean language, customs, and poetry, and pens magazine columns
on TEFL, EFL, and Korean culture. His present academic interests include professional development,
loanwords, and cognitive linguistic constructs for effective teaching techniques. Dr. Shaffer is active in
numerous Korean ELT associations as a conference presenter and board member.
David E. Shaffer, PhD
Chosun University, College of Foreign Languages, English Language Department
309 Pilmun-daero (375 Seoseok-dong), Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-759
Office Phone: 062-230-6917
Email: disin@chosun.ac.kr