DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND

METHODS INDUCTIVE AND

DEDUCTIVE STRATEGIES
The words inductive and deductive refer to the
way in which ideas flow. Inductive reasoning is
a process of thinking used when a set of data is
presented and students are asked to draw a
conclusion, make a generalization, or develop a
pattern of relationships from the data. It is a
process in which students observe specific facts
and then generalize other circumstances to
which the facts apply.
For example:

1. Some students notice rain-slick roads are

causing accidents on the way to school, so they
reduce speed at all the remaining intersections.

2. They get an unsatisfactory grade on a

chemistry exam, so they study six extra hours
a week for the rest of the semester in all their
subjects.
What these instances have in common is that they
started with a specific observation of a limited set
of data and ended with a generalization in a much
boarder context.

Between the beginning and end of each sequence

is an interpretation of observed events and the
projection of this interpretation to all similar
circumstances.
Deductive thinking on the other hand, proceeds
from principles or generalizations to the
application of these principles or generalizations
to specific instances.

It includes testing generalizations to see if they

hold the same in specific instances. Typically, a
laboratory experiment in most of the sciences (e.g.
chemistry, physics, biology, psychology,
mathematics) follows the deductive method.
The steps in deductive thinking used in the laboratory
are:

1. Stating a theory or generalization to be tested.

2. Forming a hypothesis in the form of a prediction.
3. Observing or collecting data to test the hypothesis.
4. Analyzing and interpreting the data to determine
if the prediction is true at least some of the time.
5. Concluding whether or not the generalization is
held true in the specific context in which it was
tested.
Deductive methods are similar to the students’
everyday life. Consider the two examples of
inductive thinking listed previously to see how
much change is required for them to represent
examples of deductive thinking.
1. Some students believe that rain-slick roads are the prime
contributor to traffic accidents at intersections. They
make observations one rainy morning on the way to
school and find that, indeed, more accidents have
occurred at intersections than usual. The prediction that
wet roads cause accidents at intersections is confirmed.

2. They believe that studying six extra hours a week will

not substantially raise their grades. They study six extra
hours and find that their grades have gone up. The
prediction that extra studying will not influence their
grades is not confirmed.
Both induction and deduction are important
methods for teaching concepts, patterns, and
abstractions. One application for such is to move
into progressively deeper levels of subject
complexity, using inductive and deductive
methods and occasionally changing from one
level to the other.
INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL APPRAOCHES
(STUDENT-CENTERED)
Now that the topic of direct instruction has been
discussed, it is appropriate to consider strategies
of indirect instruction involving the teaching of
concepts, patterns, and abstractions.

These behaviors are most often associated with

the words inquiry, discovery learning and
problem solving, role playing and simulation,
gaming, laboratory activities, computer-assisted
instruction, and learning or activity centers.
Perhaps no terms have been more misused or
abused in recent times than the words inquiry,
problems solving, and discovery learning.

Although initially brought to the attention of

educators through the writings of John Dewey
and Jerome Bruner, these terms have been
redefined and expanded since then to mean many
different things to many different individuals.
One popular misconception often associated
with inquiry, problem solving, and discovery
learning is the failure to understand that each of
them represents a different form of the more
general concept of indirect instruction.
Indirect instruction is an approach to teaching and
learning in which the process of learning is
inquiry, the result is discovery, and the learning
context is a problem. These three ideas—inquiry,
discovery, and problem solving—are brought
together in special ways in the indirect model of
teaching and learning.
Recall that in the previous pages of the
discussion a distinction was made between
strategies for teaching facts, rules, and action
sequences and those for teaching concepts,
patterns, and abstractions.

These examples showed how the learning of

facts, rules, and abstractions and how
instructional strategies must differ accordingly.
Just because the previous discussion explained
why direct instruction strategies were best suited
for the teaching of facts, rules, and action
sequences, it should be no surprise to learn that
indirect instructional strategies are best suited
for teaching concepts, patterns, and abstractions.

The following set of topics requires more than

the acquisition of facts, rules, and action
sequences:
Concept of a quadratic equation (algebra)
Process of acculturation (social studies)
Meaning of contact sports (physical education)
Workings of a democracy (government)
Playing a concerto (music)
Demonstration of photosynthesis (biology)
Understanding of the law of conservation
(general science)
These topics represent not only bodies of facts,
rules, and action sequences, but also something
more: concepts, processes, meanings, and
understandings.

It would be possible to teach facts, rules, and

action sequences associated with these topics
without ever knowing the concept that binds the
facts, rules, or the action sequence together
(e.g, “Here is the definition of quadratic
equation,” “Here are the rules for solving
quadratic equation,” “Follow this sequence of
steps to solve this quadratic equation”). On the
other hand, it would not be possible to teach the
concept of a quadratic equation by introducing
only facts, rules, and action sequences.
This is because understanding concepts along
with the patterns and abstractions they represent
requires cognitive processes. Further, the
learning of concepts involves generalization and
discrimination, processes which require the
learners to rearrange and elaborate on the
stimulus material.