She is trying to compare deductive and inductive instruction.
But one thing you have to pay attention to here is that the way she finds inductive instruction
which is what we're discussing right now
and she chooses one particular instantiation of that definition, right?
On the continuum, she chooses one
where the students do not search for rules or underlying pattern.
Neither the teacher nor the learner stated grammatical rules.
So we have a very specific definition of induction here.
The outcome of the study by the way is that the deductive approach is better in the sense
of the measurements that she used.
But the question is what exactly did she compare, right?
And my position here is that this is not the best definition of induction.
I would actually-- oh, I'm sorry.
I'm going to the opposite direction.
I would argue that number 2 is probably the best option.
Again, keeping in mind that it comprises all the other definitions below it
but the moment you get to that point of metalinguistic awareness at some point
which is not what was reflected in that--
that study we just looked at in terms of the comparison.
And the reason is because you need the guidance there.
It's not only induction per se.
The confusion sometimes is induction.
It's just you look at data and somehow you figure out the pattern.
You can do that.
I mean there's no reason to say that there's not some benefit
from engaging students, sometimes as you have said.
In some cases, you just engage the students in looking for patterns
without giving them any other guidance and that's fine, you can do that.
But at some point you can-- you can actually intervene
and have that metalinguistic awareness.