Inductive & Deductive

Inductive, Deductive and

Abductive

methods

of

Teaching

    An inductive approach to teaching language starts with examples and asks learners to find rules. It can be compared with a deductive approach that starts by giving learners rules, then examples, then practice.

Example

Learners listen to a conversation that includes examples of the use of the third conditional. The teacher checks that the students understand the meaning of its use through checking learners' comprehension of the listening text, and only after this focuses on the form, using the examples from the text to elicit rules about the form, its use and its pronunciation.

In the classroom

Definitions:

Induction:

From The Oxford English Dictionary (OED); to induce (in relation to science and logic) means “to derive by reasoning, to lead to something as a conclusion, or inference, to suggest or imply,” and induction “as the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances.”

Abduction:

Another version is the “adducing (pulling together) of a number of separate facts, particulars, etc. especially for the purpose of proving a general statement.”

Deduction:

     The OED definition of to deduce is “to show or hold a thing to be derived from etc…” or “to draw as a conclusion from something known or assumed, to infer”; Deduction thus, is “inference by reasoning from generals to particulars,” or “the process of deducing from something known or assumed…”

In the classroom

Differences:

Induction and deduction are pervasive elements in critical thinking. They are also some what misunderstood terms.Arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws or rules are best expressed deductively.Most arguments are mainly inductive. In fact, inductive reasoning usually comes much more naturally to us than deductive reasoning.

 Inductive reasoning moves from specific details and observations to the lore general underlying principles or processes that explain them(e.g., newton"s law of Gravity).

The premises of an inductive argument  are believed to support the conclusion, but don't ensure it. Thus, the conclusion of an induction is regarded as a hypothesis.In the inductive method, also called the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority.

 In contrast, deductive reasoning typically moves general treuths to specific conclusion. It opens with an expansive explanation and continues with predication for specific observations supporting it.Deductive reasoning is narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming a hypothesis.

Deductive reasoning:

Deductive reasoning works from the "general" to the "specific". This is also called a "top-down" approach. The deductive reasoning works as follows: think of a theory about topic and then narrow it down to specific hypothesis (hypothesis that we test or can test).

Narrow down further if we would like to collect observations for hypothesis (note that we collect observations to accept or reject hypothesis and the reason we do that is to confirm or refute our original theory).

Inductive reasoning:

 Inductive reasoning works the other way, it works from observation (or observations) works toward generalizations and theories. This is also called a “bottom-up  approach. Inductive reason starts from specific observations , look for patterns, regularities (or irregularities), formulate hypothesis that we could work with and finally ended up developing general theories or drawing conclusion.

 In a valid deductive argument, all of the content of the conclusion is present, at least implicitly, in the premises. Deduction is non ampliative. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Valid deduction is necessarily truth preserving.

If new premises are added to a valid deductive argument (and none of its premises are changed or deleted) the argument remains valid. Deductive validity is an all-or-nothing matter; validity does not come in degrees. An argument is totally valid, or it is invalid.

Properties of Induction:

Induction is palliative. The conclusion of an inductive argument has content that goes beyond the content of its premises. A correct inductive argument may have true premises and a false conclusion. Induction is not necessarily truth preserving.