This section is going to discuss several of the case studies that support the use of Linguistic Analysis to inform instruction methods. These case studies include Ronald Sheen’s (1996) examination of the effectiveness of a deductive approach utilizing information from CA, Lin and Chuan’s (2014) examination of instruction of relative clauses to Taiwanese EFLs and Romero and Manjarres' 2017 study.
Ronald Sheen published his article The Advantages of Exploiting Contrastive Analysis in Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language in 1996, which discussed his case study that examined the effectiveness of an inductive approach versus a deductive approach that incorporated CA input.
The study, which included fifty Saudi Arabian civil students, was conducted over a forty-week intensive course and included giving the Experimental Group (EG) explanations, first in Arabic and later in English, regarding the differences between the Arabic and English languages (Sheen, 1996, pp. 6-7).
Sheen (1996) stated that the findings of his case study, “demonstrated that the treatment of the CA input in the deductive approach used with the EG has been more effective than the inductive approach in minimizing the error rate” (p. 192). In addition, Sheen (1996, p. 10) also states that a general conclusion that can be researched based on the test results is that the CA input in the EG resulted in more effective treatment.
Another important case study was conducted by Romero and Manjarres (2017).
The case study examined:
Purpose:
Romero and Manjarres state:
While the previous discussed case studies have provided support for how linguistic analysis can lead to more effective instruction, they also have reflected upon student’s perception of being taught using these methods. The following case studied further emphasized the student's perception even more.
Lin and Chuan’s 2014 study discussed in their article, Taiwanese EFL Learners’ English Relative Clauses Learning, also examines utilizing CAH in instruction but unlike Sheen (1996), this study (Lin & Chuan, 2014) also focuses on the student’s perceptions of CAH instruction.
In this study, the EG (referred to as the treatment group in the article), received the same material as the controlled groups but also received additional instruction that included explanations that had been informed using CAH (Lin & Chuan, 2014, p. 101).
According to authors the students in this study were supportive of the use of a CAH approach because they felt that it had helped them to learn and would also like to continue to use it to learn English (Lin & Chuan, 2014, p. 1 & 7).
If you are aware of an additional or new case study that discuss and/or involves Linguistic Analysis and its processes please contact the website manger for consideration of its inclusion into this professional development section.