Pramod Kumar Sah

DOI Number
First page
Last page


Abstract. This article reports on mixed methods classroom investigation that ascertained the relative effectiveness of two different explicit grammar teaching frameworks: (a) DDL with integration into Present-Practice-Produce (PPP) and (b) Illustration-Interaction-Induction (III). The analysis of the pre-, post- and delayed post-tests indicated that both the frameworks were effective in terms of acquiring written discourse markers. However, the framework DDL with III was more effective than DDL with PPP to some degree. The use of DDL helped the learners develop their autonomy. Qualitative results showed that the participants had positive attitudes towards DDL in spite of some difficulties they faced while discovering patterns through concordance data. They struggled to comprehend many of the difficult words and complex structures used in the concordance data, which by and large seemed to demotivate them. This suggests a need to pre-edit the concordance data before hand for lower level learners. The evidence also suggested the need for teachers’ explanation of the patterns discovered through DDL to assure their discovery from the risk of overgeneralization.

Full Text:




Abraham, R. (1985) ‘Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar’ in

Quarterly 19, pp 689-702.

Ahmad, K.., Corbett, G., Rogers, M. and Sussex, R. (1985) Computers, Language Learning and Language Teaching, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Azad, M. A. K. (2013) ‘Grammar teaching in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs’ in ASA University Review 7/ 2, pp. 111-126.

Barnard, R. & Scampton, D. (2008) ‘Teaching grammar: a survey of EAP teachers in New Zealand’ in New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics 14/2, pp. 59-82.

Batstone, R. (1996) ‘Key concepts in ELT: noticing’ in ELT Journal 50/3, p 273.

Bernardini, S. (2002) ‘Exploring new directions for discovery learning’ in Kettemann, Bernard & Marko, Georg (eds.), Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19-24 July, 2000. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 165-182.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language. Applied Linguistics in Series, London: Longman.

Boulton, A. (2009) ‘Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and

Training’ in ReCALL, 21/1, pp 37-51.

Boulton, A. (2010) ‘Data-Driven Learning: Taking the Computer out of the Equation’ in Language Learning 60 /3, pp 534-572.

Borg. S. and Bums, A. (2008) ‘Integrating grammar in Adult TESOL classrooms’ in Applied

Linguistics, 29/2, pp 456-482.

Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002) ‘Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit?’ in System 30, pp 433-458.

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1995) ‘Grammar and the spoken language’ in Applied Linguistics 16, pp. 141-158.

Chujo, et al (2012) ‘Paper-based, Computer-based and Combined Data-driven learning suing a Web-based concordancer’ in Language Education in Asia 3/2, pp. 132-145.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrision, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th Ed.). London: Routledge.

Cowan, R. (2009) The Teacher’s Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.

Dehghan, A. and Darasawang, P. (2014) ‘Independent learning through the use of data driven learning’ in Proceedings of the International Conference: DRAL 2/ILA 2014.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2010) ‘Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater’ in International Journal of English Studies 10/1, pp. 155-165.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: OUP.

Ellis, R. (1993) ‘Second language acquisition research: how does it help teachers?’ in ELT Journal. 47 /1, pp 3-11.

Eisenstein, M. (1987). Grammatical explanations in ESL: Teach the student, Not the

method. In M. Long & J. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL (pp. 282- 292). New Jersey: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Ellis, R. (2002) Grammar teaching- practice or consciousness-raising? In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167-174). Cambridge: CUP.

Ellis, R. (2006) ‘Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective’ in TESOL Quarterly 40/1, pp. 83-107.

Ellis, R. (2008) ‘Principles of Instructed Second Language Acquisition’ in CAL Digest, December, 2008, pp. 1-6.

Ellis, R. (2010) ‘Does explicit grammar instruction work?’ in NIJLL Project Review, No. 2, pp. 3-22.

Erlam, R. (2003) ‘The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language’ in The Modern Language Journal, 87, pp 242-260.

Flowerdew, L. (2009) ‘Applying Corpus Linguistics to Pedagogy: A Critical Evaluation’ in International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 /3, pp 393- 417.

Gilakjani, A. P. and Ahmadi, S. M. (2011) ‘Roles of consciousness in second language acquisition.Theory and Practice’ in Language Studies 1/5. pp. 435-442.

Gotz, S. (2012). Testing task-types in data-driven learning: benefits and limitations. Available on Last accessed on 27 Aug. 14.

Guan, X. (2013) ‘ A study on the application of Data-driven learning in vocabulary teaching and learning in China’s EFL class’ in Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4/1, pp. 105- 112.

Harmer, J. (1987) Teaching and Learning Grammar: London: Longman.

Henry, W.C.H., Evelyn, W.M.C. and Terence, T.S.L. (2011) Examining the effectiveness of adopting an inductive approach to the teaching of English grammar. Retrieved from

Herron, C. and Tomasello, M. (1992) ‘Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction’ in French Review 65, pp 708-718.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2005) ‘Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning’ in Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, pp 129-140.

Jarvis, H. and Szymczyk, M. (2009) ‘Students views on learning grammar with web- and book-based material’ in ELT Journal 64/1, pp. 32- 44.

Johns, C. and Carter, R. (2014) ‘Teaching spoken discourse markers explicitly: A comparison of III and PPP’ in International Journal of English Studies 14/1, pp. 37-54.

Johns, T. and King, P. (1991). ‘Classroom Concordancing’ in Birmingham University: English Language Research Journal 4, pp 1-12.

Johns, T. (1997a). Contexts: the background, development and trialling of a concordance-based CALL programme. In: A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Corpora. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. 100-115.

Kaltenbock, G. and Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2005)’ Computer Corpora and the Language Classroom: On the Potential and Limitations of Computer Corpora in Language Teaching’ in ReCALL 17/1, pp 65-84.

Ke, Z. (2008) ‘An inductive approach to English grammar teaching: HKBU Papers’ in Applied Languages Studies 12, pp. 1-18.

Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach. Oxford : OUP

Krashen, S. (2002). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.

Lewis, M (1993) The Lexical Approach. LTP Teacher Trainings

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H. and Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, S. (1980) ‘Developing vocabulary materials with a computer corpus’ in RELC Journal, 11/2, pp 77-87.

McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. and McLead, B. (1983) ‘Second language learning: an information-processing perspective’ in Journal of Research in Language Studies 33 /2, pp. 135-158.

Mohamed, N. (2004) ‘Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective’ in ELT Journal Volume 58 /3, pp. 228- 237.

Morrison, B. 1989, ‘Using news broadcasts for authentic listening comprehension’ in ELT Journal 43/1, pp. 14-23.

Nagaratnam, R. P. and Al-Mekhlafi, (2012) ‘Attitudes towards EFL grammar instruction: inductive of deductive’ in LEARN Journal 1/ 2, pp. 78-105.

Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000) ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’ in Language Learning 50, pp 417-428.

Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2004) ‘Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar’ in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp 129-145.

Odlin, T. (1994) Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perry, F. L. (2005). Research in applied linguistics. London: Lowerence Erlbaum Association.

Pienemann, M. (1988) ‘Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing’ in AILA Review 5, pp 40-72.

Prabhu, N. (1990) ‘There is no best method – why?’ in TESOL Quarterly, 24/ 2, pp.161 – 176

Ranalli, J. M. (2011). Consciousness-raising versus deductive approaches to language instruction: a study of learner preferences. University of Birmingham, 2011

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search conditions, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67

Rosa, R. and O’Neill, M. D. (1999) ‘Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness’ in Second Language Acquisition, 21, pp 511-556.

Sah, P. K. (2015). Data-driven learning (DDL) for enhancing learner autonomy. IATEFL Independence, Issue 64, August, 2015.

Sah, P. K. (2014). If only it were true: the problems with grammar teaching. NELTA Choutari.Available at.

Schmidta, R. (1990) ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’ in Applied Linguistics 11, pp 129 - 158.

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’ in Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, pp 147-163.

Seliger, H. W. (1975) ‘Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination’ in IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching 13, pp 1-18.

Shaffer, C. (1989) ‘A comparison of inductive and deductive approached to teaching languages’ in The Modern Language Journal 73, pp 395-403.

Shehadeh, A. (2002) ‘Comprehensible output from occurrence to acquisition: an agenda for acquisition research’ in Language Learning, 52/ 3, pp. 597-647

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998) ‘Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together’ in The Modern Language Journal, 8/3, pp 320-337.

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. London: Longman.

Tutunis, B. (2012) ‘Grammar in EFL pedagogy: To be or not to be: Explicit or implicit grammar instruction in EFL’ in International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2/. 5, pp. 120-122.

Ur, P. (1988). Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical Guide for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

VanPatten, B. (2003). From Input to Output: A Teacher's Guide to Second Language Acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction. Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 5-31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vickers, C. H. & Ena, E. (2006). Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in advanced writing. ELT Journal, Vol. 60 (2), pp. 109- 116.

White,L. (1988). Implications of Learnability Theories for Second Language Learning And Teaching. Printed at TESOL, Chicago.

Wong, W. and VanPatten, B. (2003) ‘The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT’ in Foreign Language Annals 36/3, pp 403-423.

Yoon, H. and A. Hirvela. (2004) ‘ESL students’ attitudes towards corpus use in L2’ in Journal of Second Language Writing 13/4, pp. 257- 283


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)

ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)


University of Niš

Univerzitetski trg 2, 18000 Niš, Serbia
Phone:    +381 18 257 095
Telefax:  +381 18 257 950

© 2013 by University of Niš, Serbia