THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL

Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, 2024, 1-17

http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2024.21.1.1.1

The Journal of Asia TEFL

http://journal.asiatefl.org/
e-ISSN 2466-1511 © 2004 AsiaTEFL.org. All rights reserved.

The Interaction Effects of Language Proficiency and Language

Analytic Ability on Explicit Deductive and Inductive Grammar
Instruction

Miki Satori
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

This study explored which type of explicit instruction (explicit-deductive or explicit-inductive) was
more effective for Japanese EFL learners across different proficiency levels and examined the role of
language analytic ability (LAA) in L2 proficiency and learning outcomes. This study also investigated
how individual differences in LAA mediated the effects of these two types of explicit instructional
approaches. The participants were 82 late learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). They
completed a subtest of an aptitude test and a form-focused sentence correction test to measure their
resulting performance. The results indicated that explicit-deductive grammar instruction might be more
beneficial than explicit-inductive instruction for Japanese EFL learners with low proficiency. LAA had
a positive effect on L2 proficiency, but the effects of individual differences in LAA on instructional
outcomes were neutralised by more structured explicit grammar instruction in the case of Japanese EFL
learners. Follow-up analyses showed that the interaction effect of LAA with explicit-deductive
instruction was significant in the low-LAA group. This study highlights the importance of considering
the interaction among LAA, language proficiency, and instructional conditions in the design of the most
effective learning activities in Japanese EFL classrooms.

本研究では、異なる英語習熟度を持つ日本人の英語学習者に対して、文法の指導において演
繹的アプローチと帰納的アプローチのどちらの明示的指導方法が効果的かについて調査を行
った。また、言語適性が教育の成果にどのように影響するかについても検証した。82人の日
本人英語学習者を対象に、言語適性テストと英文の文法修正タスクを行い、文法の指導前と
指導後の成績の比較を行った。研究の結果、英語習熟度や言語適性の低い日本人学習者にと
っては、演繹的なアプローチによる明示的文法指導の方が、帰納的なアプローチによる指導
よりも有益である可能性が示された。学習者の言語適性は英語の習熟度と正の相関関係があ
ったが、指導の成果への影響は、確認されなかった。この結果より、日本における文法の指
導においては、言語適性、習熟度、および指導方法の相互作用を考慮することが重要である
可能性が示唆された。

Keywords: language analytic ability, L2 proficiency, explicit-deductive/inductive approach,

grammar acquisition, Japanese EFL classrooms

Introduction

Numerous empirical studies have provided evidence that explicit grammar instruction can be
advantageous for L2 learners in acquiring and using grammar in different L2 contexts (DeKeyser, 1995;
Norris & Ortega, 2000; 2001). For instance, a meta-analysis by Norris and Ortega (2000; 2001) revealed
that learners who received explicit rule-based instruction, primarily focusing on the form of grammar,

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 1

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

experienced immediate improvements in their grammar skills, and these gains were sustained over time.
The meta-analysis also suggested that learners with lower proficiency levels may benefit more from explicit
grammar instruction than those with higher proficiency levels. Furthermore, Norris and Ortega (2000; 2001)
proposed that the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction could be influenced by the instructional
techniques employed. However, the meta-analysis did not distinguish between the two types of explicit
instruction: explicit-deductive and explicit-inductive (Tammenga-Helmantel et al., 2016). In the deductive
learning condition, learners are presented with rules before encountering examples, while in the inductive
learning condition, learners are exposed to examples before inferring the rules (DeKeyser, 1995). Hwu et
al. (2014) emphasise that there are various types of inductive approaches. Some studies in second language
acquisition (SLA) have shown that learners taught using inductive methods outperform their deductively
taught counterparts, provided that both approaches include the explicit formulation of grammar rules
(Tammenga-Helmantel et al., 2016; Vogel et al., 2011).
Despite the considerable body of evidence supporting the positive impact of explicit instructional
approaches on the development of declarative knowledge of L2 grammar (e.g., Sato, 2021), several
unanswered questions regarding the interaction between the type of explicit instruction and individual
differences in foreign language aptitude remain (Hwu et al., 2014). Some studies (Benson & DeKeyser,
2019; Hwu et al., 2014) propose that learners with lower aptitudes may perform better under explicit or
deductive learning conditions.
Regarding the influence of language aptitude on grammar acquisition, Li's (2015) meta-analysis revealed
a significant correlation between language analytic ability (LAA) and L2 grammar learning, with a stronger
correlation observed for explicit instructional treatments than for implicit ones. Conversely, several studies
(Erlam, 2005; Farshi & Tavakoli, 2021) have suggested that deductive form-focused instruction could
diminish the impact of individual differences in LAA on instructional effectiveness. Based on the
hypothesis that the difference in the syntactic structures between Japanese and English (Lucas, 2022) and
the explicit learning experience of Japanese EFL learners may result in a different pattern of knowledge
representation from that of ESL learners (Satori, 2023), this study aimed to determine which type of explicit
instruction (explicit-deductive or explicit-inductive) was more effective for Japanese EFL learners.
Furthermore, the study explored how individual differences in language proficiency and LAA influence the
effectiveness of these two types of explicit instructional approaches.

Literature Review

The Effectiveness of Deductive and Inductive Grammar Instruction

Erlam (2003) explains that in deductive grammar instruction, the teacher explicitly presents target
structures before students engage in language practice. Previous studies have adopted different approaches
to inductive grammar instruction (Erlam, 2003). For example, in some studies, participants had to identify
grammar rules without any guidance from a teacher (e.g., Erlam, 2003; Hassanzadeh & Shahbazi, 2021),
while others included explanations of the rules (e.g., Haight et al., 2007; Hwu et al., 2014; Tammenga-
Helmantel et al., 2016; Vogel et al., 2011). The different procedures used in previous studies for inductive
instruction have led to mixed results when investigating the effectiveness of deductive and inductive
approaches. Erlam (2003) investigated the effectiveness of deductive (rule-based) and inductive (form-
focused without explicit grammatical explanation) instruction in the context of acquiring direct object
pronouns in L2 French for high school students in New Zealand. The results showed that deductive
instruction significantly improved comprehension and production. In contrast, Haight et al. (2007) and
Vogel et al. (2011) demonstrated that a guided inductive approach had a significantly greater effect than a
deductive approach on the short-term learning of various grammatical structures in L2 French for beginner
and intermediate college students, respectively. Glaser (2013) suggested that the superiority of inductive

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 2

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

learning, which is guided but not dominated by the teacher, may be due to learners’ active participation in
analysing and discovering the language, leading to better retention.
Examining the learning of a complex German grammatical structure, Tammenga-Helmantel et al. (2016)
investigated the effectiveness of explicit-deductive and explicit-inductive instruction for Dutch adolescent
students learning German, including the explicit formulation of grammar rules. The target structure was the
German subjunctive for reported speech. This structure was chosen to minimise the influence of the
proximity of the linguistic distance between Dutch and German, as it does not exist in Dutch. The results
showed that both types of explicit instruction contributed positively to learning outcomes, as measured by
two tests: a receptive grammaticality judgement test and a productive writing test. However, the inductive
teaching method was slightly better than the deductive method only for the grammaticality judgement test
but not for the productive test. Tammenga-Helmantel et al. (2016) argue that the difference between these
tests may be due to the complexity of the tasks and that the effectiveness of the inductive treatment may be
related to a better match with the cognitive processes involved in the receptive grammaticality judgement
test rather than the productive writing test.
Despite these positive findings, it is worth noting that the inductive approach may be more cognitively
demanding, especially for beginner Japanese EFL learners who have no experience with inductive learning,
especially when dealing with complex grammatical structures. In addition, the vast linguistic distance
between Japanese and English in terms of syntactic structures (Saito, 2012) and the complexity of the target
structure may influence the results.

The Relationship between Language Aptitude and L2 Learning and Proficiency

Language aptitude refers to three components of cognitive ability, namely, phonetic coding ability, LAA,
and rote memory, which predict learning rates (Li, 2017). Li (2016) suggested that aptitude is distinct from
other cognitive and affective variables, such as motivation and anxiety, and that it is separate from
intelligence. Li's (2016) meta-analysis showed that overall aptitude predicted general L2 proficiency and
specific aspects of L2 learning, except vocabulary learning and L2 writing, particularly at lower proficiency
levels.
Recent studies have increasingly used the LLAMA language aptitude test (Meara, 2005) to determine
L2 aptitude (Chalmers et al., 2021; Granena, 2013). LLAMA is a language-independent computerised
aptitude test comprising four subcomponents: LLAMA B assesses vocabulary learning; LLAMA D
evaluates sound recognition; LLAMA E measures sound-symbol associations; and LLAMA F tests
grammatical inference. Many studies have shown that the different aptitude components, as measured by
the LLAMA test, might be relevant to various aspects of L2 learning. For example, Yalçın and Spada (2016)
investigated the contribution of different components of language aptitude to learning difficult (passive
voice) and easy (past progressive tense) English structures. The results indicated that the grammatical
inference component, measured by LLAMA F, was associated with learners' progress in understanding the
passive tense but not the past progressive tense after four hours of explicit grammar instruction. The results
suggest that L2 learners may rely on their language aptitude for grammatical inference when attempting to
fully comprehend complex grammatical structures.
Li (2013, 2015) also suggested that LAA (LLAMA F) is the most predictive of L2 proficiency among
the three components of language aptitude at all stages of language development. In this regard, Artieda
and Muñoz (2016) investigated the impact of separate aptitude components on L2 proficiency test
performance across two proficiency levels (beginners: CEFR A1 level; intermediate: CEFR B1-B2 level).
While the tests differed in terms of the targeted proficiency levels, both measured five language dimensions:
use of language, reading, listening, writing, and speaking. The regression results indicated that phonetic
coding ability, measured by LLAMA D, predicted test performance only for the low-proficiency group. In
contrast, LAA, measured by LLAMA F, was a significant predictor of performance in both proficiency
groups. In the case of Japanese EFL learners, Sato (2020) investigated the relationship between L2
beginners' language proficiency and the four components of language aptitude as measured by the LLAMA

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 3

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

test. The participants' proficiency was determined by the Test of English for International Communication
(TOEIC) Bridge test offered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), and their proficiency levels were
classified as CEFR A1 and A2. The regression results showed that LLAMA F was a significant predictor
of the TOEIC Bridge total score and the reading section score.

The Effects of LAA on Implicit and Explicit Grammar Instruction

LAA pertains to the ability to discern the grammatical functions of elements within sentences (Li & Fu,
2019). It encompasses both grammatical inference and sensitivity (Saito, 2017; Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017a).
Furthermore, LAA is thought to assist learners in efficiently allocating their limited cognitive resources to
comprehend the structures of linguistic information present in a language (Saito, 2017). Consequently,
LAA may play a more significant role in the form-focused second language (L2) learning process,
particularly during the middle stage of acquisition, which involves the presentation of more demanding and
formal rules (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017a; Yilmaz, 2013). In light of this, Suzuki and DeKeyser (2017b)
propose that LAA may be linked to the development of automatised explicit knowledge.
Many studies have explored the interaction between LAA and the effectiveness of implicit and explicit
grammar instruction. For instance, Li's (2015) meta-analysis on the relationship between language aptitude
and grammar acquisition revealed that LAA exhibited a stronger association with explicit L2 grammar
learning (r =.40, 95% CI = .28–.51) than with implicit grammar learning (r =.17, 95% CI = .01–.32). Li
(2013) postulated that LAA displays sensitivity to implicit learning conditions when acquiring accessible
structures with moderate cognitive processing demands and explicit conditions when tackling intricate
structures that impose a heavy cognitive load on learners.
On the other hand, other studies have suggested that form-focused instruction involving explicit rule
presentation can compensate for the effects of individual differences in LAA (Erlam, 2005; Farshi &
Tavakoli, 2021). For instance, Erlam (2005) examined the influence of LAA on three instructional
approaches (deductive, inductive, and structured-input instruction) concerning the acquisition of direct
object pronouns in L2 French. The findings indicated that learners with higher LAA benefited more from
inductive and structured input instruction than other learners did, and deductive instruction mitigated
individual differences in the effect of LAA on learning outcomes. Similarly, Farshi and Tavakoli (2021)
demonstrated that modified instruction, emphasising increased exposure to form-focused input of target
grammar collocations, positively impacted both immediate and long-term learning gains in receptive
knowledge while diminishing individual differences in LAA. Furthermore, Kourtali and Révész (2020)
revealed that LLAMA F scores failed to predict the development of beginner-level child EFL learners'
knowledge of the target structure (the third person's) when recasting was employed as the instructional
strategy.
Several empirical studies have examined the interaction between aptitude and instructional approaches
regarding explicit or deductive grammar instruction (Benson & DeKeyser, 2019; Hwu et al., 2014). For
instance, Hwu et al. (2014) employed a comprehensive aptitude construct comprising three components to
explore how language aptitude levels (high vs. low) interact with the effects of two explicit instruction
types (deductive and explicit-inductive) in acquiring L2 Spanish grammar. Using LGCA, the study revealed
that low-aptitude learners exhibited significantly better performance when exposed to deductive instruction.
In contrast, high-aptitude learners demonstrated a slightly improved yet statistically nonsignificant
performance under explicit-inductive instruction. Furthermore, Benson and DeKeyser (2019) showed that
learners with lower LAA derived more significant benefits from metalinguistic feedback, which can be
characterised as a more explicit and deductive instructional approach.
According to Li (2017), deductive instruction is posited as a more effective approach for learners with
lower aptitude, as they tend to benefit from enhanced external assistance through explicit rule presentation.
Conversely, Li and Fu (2019) argued that explicit-inductive instruction may prove advantageous for
learners with higher aptitude, mainly when the instructional context necessitates the utilisation of learners'
LAA to tap into their preexisting linguistic knowledge. Nevertheless, importantly, outcomes may vary

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 4

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

when considering participants' L1 background and language proficiency level, potentially deviating from
the findings of earlier investigations.

The Present Study

The primary objective of the current study was to examine the interactive effects of language proficiency
and LAA on the efficacy of two explicit grammar instruction approaches in facilitating the accurate
utilisation of target structures among Japanese EFL learners. Previous research conducted in the Japanese
EFL context (Author, 2023) has indicated that nonautomatised explicit knowledge has a more pronounced
impact on L2 proficiency than automatised explicit knowledge. Consequently, the present study focuses
solely on developing declarative explicit knowledge in instructional targets, as it is believed that
establishing enduring explicit knowledge may serve as a catalyst for subsequent practices that foster the
development of automatised explicit knowledge among Japanese EFL learners. Furthermore, it is posited
that the effectiveness of explicit-deductive and explicit-inductive grammar instruction approaches may vary
depending on learners' proficiency levels and LAA in Japanese EFL classrooms. Thus, the study was
designed to address the following research questions to elucidate these issues.

RQ 1. What is the impact of explicit-deductive and explicit-inductive grammar instruction on the

acquisition of target structures among Japanese beginner and intermediate EFL learners?
RQ 2. To what extent does LAA moderate the effectiveness of explicit-deductive and explicit-inductive
instruction on learners' performance?

Method

Participants

The 82 participants were second-year Japanese EFL students from a Japanese university. The majority
of the participants were 19–20 years old and had homogeneous social and educational backgrounds.
Students with more than three months of overseas experience were excluded from the study. The
participants had completed six years of compulsory English language education before entering university.
In regular English classes conducted in Japanese junior high schools and high schools, English grammar is
usually taught explicitly and deductively, so it was believed that the participants were not accustomed to
inductive learning. On average, they received four weekly hours of English language instruction at the
university. All of them completed the TOEIC (IP) before participating in the treatment. Their TOEIC (IP)
scores ranged from 255 to 855 (average = 532, SD =150, 95% CI = .35–.56). According to the level mapping
of the TOEIC–Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) provided by ETS, the
participants’ proficiency was estimated to range from CEFR A2 to B2. The participants were assigned to
one of two instruction groups (42 explicit-deductive or 40 explicit-inductive). An important aspect of the
present study involves the influence of learners’ proficiency on different learning conditions. In the case of
proficiency-based classrooms, if effective teaching methods differ according to proficiency level, it is
possible to vary teaching methods from class to class. Therefore, based on their performance on the TOEIC,
the participants were then divided into two proficiency levels: intermediate (34 students who scored 550
and above) and beginner (48 students who scored 545 and below). Based on the TOEIC-CEFR level map
provided by ETS, 20% of the participants in the higher-proficiency group were at the CEFR B2 level, and
the remaining 80% were at the CEFR B1 level. On the other hand, all of the participants in the lower-
proficiency group were at the CEFR A2 level.

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 5

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

Target Structures

The target structures were subject‒verb agreement, adjectives and adverbs, conjunctions (parallel
structures), pronouns, and noun problems (singular/plural and countable/uncountable). These structures
were chosen for three reasons. First, for Japanese learners of English, the concept of these structures, such
as agreement in numbers, is difficult because there are no equivalent rules in the Japanese language. For
example, the Japanese language lacks a system for acknowledging countability and associated plural forms
(Lucas, 2022). In addition, the traditional Japanese method of teaching English through translation (Saito,
2014) may not adequately address the functional differences in usage between adjectives and adverbs.
Second, the rules governing these structures are evident. Therefore, explicit rule-based instruction could be
beneficial (Hwu et al., 2014). Third, they are also the main structures of the written expression part of the
TOEFL, with which many EFL learners struggle (Akmal et al., 2020). Akmal et al. (2020) argue that this
difficulty is due to a lack of practice and grammar skills. The participants in the present study also had
problems correctly using grammatical knowledge in writing even after they had learned it. For example,
subject‒verb agreement is particularly tricky for EFL learners when there are prepositional phrases between
the subject and the verb (e.g., The languages of the world presents a vast array of similarities and
differences). In this case, EFL learners sometimes make a verb agree with a word in the prepositional phrase
or clause rather than with the sentence’s subject after being interrupted by the group of words. EFL learners
also often fail to add a third-person singular s to the end of a verb in the present tense when the subject is
an indefinite pronoun. Such errors occur because of a lack of awareness or intentional attention given to
the specific form in the sentences, even when learners have prior knowledge of the target structures. In this
regard, explicit language instruction or repeated practice exercises focused on the form could be effective
for helping late L2 learners in the EFL context achieve advanced performance on the test. Therefore, the
present study aims to examine the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction on errors related to these
tricky structures. In the present study, the researcher ensured that the participants did not receive any
instruction on the target structure outside the study.

Procedure

The current study employed a pretest-treatment-posttest 1-posttest 2 experimental design. The instruction
and testing were conducted as parts of regular classes focusing on English grammar and academic reading.
In the first class (Week 1), the students completed the LLAMA F and a form-focused sentence correction
test to measure their prior knowledge of the target structures. The fifth class was used for posttest 1 (Week
5). Two weeks later (Week 7), an unannounced posttest 2 was administered. In between these tests, the
participants attended a series of three 45-minute lessons (Weeks 2-4). The participants received equal
instruction from a single instructor who taught exercises on the target grammatical structures. In the present
study, both the explicit-deductive and explicit-inductive approaches include an explicit explanation of the
grammar rule. In the explicit-inductive method, participants first observe examples in the learning materials
(Phillips, 2004) concerning the target structure and determine whether the sentences are grammatically
correct or incorrect (see Appendix A for examples of the sentences). Then, they are asked to identify the
rule that explains each error in the ungrammatical sentences. After the exploring phase, the rule is explicitly
explained using PowerPoint slides (see Appendix B for examples of the slides). Then, participants undergo
postinstructional exercises in which they practice identifying errors in the grammaticality judgement test
(Phillips, 2004) using the grammar rule that they had previously learned. In the explicit-deductive method,
the learning materials begin with a presentation explaining the grammar rule to the participants. Next, the
same exploratory and postinstructional practice phases as those in the explicit-inductive methods are
applied. To ensure that the participants following both methods received a comparable amount of exposure
to the target structure, the researcher provided (1) the same set of exemplars in the learning materials for
both conditions and (2) a comparable amount of grammar explanations by using the same PowerPoint slides
in both conditions. Participants who missed any of the lessons were removed from the dataset.

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 6

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

Instruments

Language aptitude test

In the present study, an adapted version of the LLAMA F (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017b) was used. The
LLAMA F task, which is a part of the LLAMA language aptitude test battery (Meara, 2005), measures the
ability to infer or induce the grammatical rules of an unknown language or explicit-inductive learning
ability (Granena, 2013). Granena (2013) conducted an exploratory validation study to assess the reliability
of the test with a sample of 186 participants from three different L1 backgrounds. The internal consistency
of the LLAMA F was acceptable (Cronbach’s α =.60).
In a timed study phase (five minutes), the participants observed a set of 20 pictures and sentences
describing them on the computer screen and determined the grammatical rules of an artificial language. In
the testing phase, the participants were presented with a picture and two sentences—one grammatical and
one ungrammatical—and asked to choose the correct sentence for each picture using the grammatical rules
that they had internalised in the study phase.
The adapted version of the LLAMA F included more item sets (30 items) than the original LLAMA F
developed by Meara (2005) (20 items) so that it could produce more variance than the original test. The
test yielded good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α =.80) in the present study.

Pre- and post-tests

A written sentence correction test was chosen to measure the participants’ explicit L2 knowledge about
the target structures as the pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2 (see Appendix C for an example of the test
items). For this study, it was expected that the sentence correction test would be the most valid and reliable
task for measuring the Japanese EFL learners’ explicit L2 knowledge because the test is more cognitively
demanding than the receptive grammaticality judgement test is. Each test was based on the written
expression section of the retired Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) paper test (Phillips, 2004).
The written expression section of the TOEFL was designed to test grammatical knowledge of written
English, and the participants were presented with 25 ungrammatical sentences in which four words or
groups of words were underlined. Following Vaffaee, Suzuki, and Kachisnke (2017), ungrammatical
sentences in GJTs were considered a more valid measure of L2 explicit knowledge of the target structures
because they require learners to direct their attention to form in the sentences (Satori, 2023). In addition,
each of the tests included well-balanced target structures. The participants were required to choose words
or groups of words that were ungrammatical and correct them. The participants were given a maximum of
25 minutes to complete the test so that they could access their explicit knowledge without time pressure.
In scoring the sentence correction test, the participants’ corrections were checked for accuracy only when
they correctly chose the ungrammatical part of each sentence. When they chose a grammatical word or
group of words, no points were assigned.

General L2 language proficiency test

General L2 language proficiency was measured using the computer-based TOEIC IP test offered by the
ETS. The test was a computer adaptive test (CAT) comprising two units divided into a listening section (25
min) and a reading section (37 min). Unit 1 presented the same 25 questions to all participants, and Unit 2
presented 20 questions adapted according to the participants’ performance in Unit 1. The questions in the
listening section involved photographs (3 items), question-response (9 items), conversations (18 items),
and talks (15 items), and each question had three or four options. The questions in the reading section
referred to incomplete sentences (12 items), text completion (8 items), and reading comprehension (15
items), and each question had four options. The participants completed both listening and reading sentences
as part of their school curriculum. Each participant received scores on a scale ranging from 5 to 495 points

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 7

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

for reading and listening comprehension. The scores were combined for a total score on a scale from 10 to
990 points.

Data Analyses

After the initial preparation, the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistics version 19 and
Amos version 28. The present study focused on the interaction effects of LAA with the relationship between
explicit learning conditions and learning outcomes. Therefore, latent growth curve analysis (LGCA) was
conducted. LGCA was chosen for the same reason as in the work of Hwu et al. (2014), who explained that
LGCA can provide more sensitive analyses of learning growth patterns than other methods, such as
repeated-measures ANOVA. In the present study, the unspecified LGCA (Hwu et al., 2014) was used to
infer the learning growth change because the learning gain over time was nonlinear. As a result, for the
nonlinear growth curve model, the first two slope parameters (pretest and posttest 1) were fixed at 0 and 1,
and the third slope parameter (posttest 2) was left free to yield a better model fit. The model fit was assessed
with the chi-square (χ2), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) tests. These are commonly used key goodness-of-fit indices (Hwu et al., 2014).
The NFI and CFI measure the relative improvement in model fit compared to a baseline or null model. The
NFI and CFI values range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better fit. A commonly used threshold
for acceptable fit is 0.95 or higher. The RMSEA measures the discrepancy between the model-implied
covariance matrix and the observed covariance matrix, accounting for the complexity of the model. Lower
RMSEA values indicate a better fit. A commonly used criterion is that values less than 0.06 indicate a
reasonable fit (Shi et al., 2019).

Results

The descriptive statistics for the test scores are presented in Table 1. All tests showed skewness and
kurtosis within the range of ±1.0. Therefore, the scores for all variables were approximately normally
distributed. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for all tests was acceptable.
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the participants’ scores on the sentence correction task for
each instruction group. These scores improved considerably from the pretests to posttest 1.

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for Scores on the Tests (n = 82)
Tests k M SD n Skewness Kurtosis α
LAA 30 23. 05 4.59 82 -.37 -.58 .80
Pretest 25 11.12 5.38 82 .11 -.76 .86
Posttest 1 25 15.41 4.70 82 -.46 -.25 .83
Posttest 2 25 15.28 4.74 82 -.11 -.48 .73
TOEIC 990 531.65 149.48 82 .35 -.61 ---
Note. The figures represent the raw scores.

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics for Each Instruction Group
LAA Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest 2
Learning Conditions n
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Explicit inductive 40 23.65 4.67 10.85 5.26 13.90 5.01 14.08 4.89
Explicit-deductive 42 22.48 4.50 11.57 5.53 16.86 3.91 16.43 4.34
Note. The figures represent the raw scores.

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 8

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

Correlation analyses were performed between the variables to examine the relationship between LAA
and learner performance (Table 3). The LAA scores were significantly correlated with the pretest and
posttests scores and the TOEIC test score.

TABLE 3
Summary of Correlations between Scores for the Tests (n = 82)
Tests 1 2 3 4
1. LAA ---
2. Pretest .31** ---
3. Posttest 1 .25* .71*** ---
4. Posttest 2 .26* .62*** .83*** ---
TOEIC .33** .62*** .55*** .63***
Note. *p< .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Next, to explore the effects of LAA and the two types of explicit instruction on the participants’ learning
gain, an LGCA was performed for the sentence correction tests (Figure 1). In the LGCA model, the explicit-
inductive condition was coded as 0, while the explicit-deductive condition was coded as 1. An excellent
model fit was achieved (χ2 = 2.08, df = 3, p = .56), and the model produced a good description of the data
(NFI =.988, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA =.000). In the model, an intercept refers to the scores for the pretest, and
a slope refers to the average growth rate. The results showed that the participants performed better under
explicit-deductive learning conditions than under explicit-inductive conditions, as evidenced by the positive
significant path coefficient of the language condition to the slope (2.11, p < .01). LAA had a significantly
positive effect on the initial level of performance, as evidenced by the positive significant path coefficient
to the intercept (.38, p < .01), but had no significant effect on the growth rate, as evidenced by the coefficient
to the slope (-.08, n.s.).

Figure 1. Latent growth curve models for sentence correction test scores with learning condition and LAA
as covariates (*p< .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).

Results for RQ 1

To examine the effect of language proficiency on different learning conditions, the participants were then
divided into two proficiency levels based on their performance on the TOEIC: higher (34 students who
scored 550 and above) and lower (48 students who scored 545 and below). Based on the TOEIC-CEFR

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 9

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

level map provided by ETS, 26% of the participants in the higher-proficiency group were at the CEFR B2
level, and the remaining 74% of the participants were at the CEFR B1 level. On the other hand, all of the
participants in the lower-proficiency group were at the CEFR A2 level. Then, an LGCA was performed
between the two proficiency groups (Figure 2). In the low-proficiency group, excellent model fit was
achieved (χ2 = .01, df = 1, p = .946), and the model produced an excellent description of the data (NFI =
1.000, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000). The results showed a significant time-by-group interaction effect, as
evidenced by the positive significant path coefficient from the language condition to the slope (3.20, p
< .01). In contrast, in the high-proficiency group, good model fit was not achieved (χ2 = 3.68, df = 3, p
= .298), and the description of the data (NFI = .938, CFI = .986, RMSEA = .076) was not reasonable but
was acceptable. In addition, the path coefficient from the learning condition to the slope (.91, n.s.) indicated
no significant differences between the effectiveness of the two types of explicit instruction.

High-proficiency group Low-proficiency group

Figure 2. Latent growth curve models with learning condition as a covariate for each proficiency group (**p
< .01, ***p < .001).

Results for RQ 2

To investigate how the learners’ LAA mediated the effectiveness of both types of explicit grammar
instruction on their accurate use of the target structures, a multigroup LGCA by LAA with a median split
on LAA scores was conducted by the grouping technique of Hwu et al. (2014) (Figure 3). In these LGCA
models, the explicit-inductive condition was coded as 0, while the explicit-deductive condition was coded
as 1. In the high-ability group, excellent model fit was obtained (χ2 = .108, df = 1, p = .742). The model
produced a good description of the data (NFI = .000, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000). The path coefficient
from the learning condition to the slope (1.84, n.s.) indicated no significant differences between the
effectiveness of the two types of explicit instruction in the high-ability group. In contrast, in the low-ability
group, a good model fit was obtained (χ2 = .762, df = 1, p = .383). The model produced a good description
of the data (NFI = 0.991, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000). The positive significant path coefficient from the
language condition to the slope (2.29, p < .05) showed that the participants in the low-ability group
performed significantly better under explicit-deductive learning conditions than under explicit-inductive
conditions.

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 10

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

High-ability group Low-ability group

Figure 3. Latent growth curve models with learning condition as a covariate moderated by LAA
(*p < .05. **p < .01, ***p < .001).

Discussion

RQ 1 aimed to investigate the comparative effectiveness of two types of explicit grammar instruction in
facilitating learners’ learning gains across proficiency levels. The LGCA results revealed that beginner-
level Japanese EFL learners performed better under explicit-deductive learning conditions than under
explicit-inductive conditions.
In the present study, both instructional groups received explicit rule explanations from the teacher before
or after engaging in language practice. These findings diverge from those reported by Haight et al. (2007)
and Vogel et al. (2011), who suggested that explicit-inductive instruction yielded better outcomes when
learners were provided with explicit rule instruction. Possible reasons for the divergence in findings include
differences in study design, the linguistic distance between L1 English-L2 French and L1 Japanese-L2
English, or the characteristics of the participants. In the present study, design, the participants’ explicit
knowledge was measured by a written sentence correction test, which required them to pay selective
attention to the ungrammatical parts of the sentence and correct them. In addition, many parts of the target
structures, such as subject‒verb agreements, pronouns, and noun problems, were related to the concept of
‘number agreement,’ which does not exist in Japanese. The higher cognitive load associated with the large
linguistic distance between English and Japanese and the study design may have led to the superiority of
explicit-deductive instruction in the present study. In addition, the specific learning context in the Japanese
EFL classroom may have influenced the results. In the Japanese educational and cultural context, students
learn English mainly for testing purposes rather than for communicating with people from other countries.
Importantly, the participants in our study had learned English after reaching puberty and had received
explicit formal language instruction focusing on grammatical form. They were frequently encouraged to
consciously access explicit grammatical rules, particularly during language proficiency tests. The results
observed in the present study may be attributed to the Japanese context, which places a strong emphasis on
exams and grades. Within the explicit-inductive group, the participants were encouraged to identify
grammar rules by observing exemplars, including target structures, in the learning materials. However, the
cognitive process of paying attention to the specific grammatical errors in the exemplars and inferring

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 11

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

language rules may have competed for limited processing resources in the central executive component of
working memory (Just & Carpenter, 1992). In the case of Japanese EFL learners, the process was less
automatic and posed a cognitive challenge for them, especially because they had limited experience with
inductive learning in the traditional Japanese EFL environment. The controlled processing involved in
explicit-deductive learning, which required more cognitive resources (Ortega, 2009), may have hindered
the effectiveness of this approach.
In contrast, in the explicit-deductive group, the participants received a presentation on grammar rules
before engaging with the learning materials. Consequently, applying the rules to the examples in the
learning materials posed less cognitive challenge than inducing rules that would apply to the same examples.
As a result, the explicit-deductive group demonstrated more effective learning outcomes than did the
explicit-inductive group, utilising their constrained cognitive resources to focus on the specific sentence
structures within the lower-proficiency group.
RQ 2 examined the mediating role of LAA in the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction on
learners’ accurate use of target structures. The results of the LGCA indicated that learners with low LAA
performed significantly better when exposed to explicit-deductive instruction, which is consistent with
findings from Benson & DeKeser (2019) and Hwu et al. (2014). Certain target structures, such as subject‒
verb agreement, proved challenging for Japanese EFL learners due to the absence of number agreement in
the Japanese language. Analysing sentences for grammatical issues while relying on their existing grammar
knowledge imposes a heavy cognitive load on learners with low LAA, who prefer explicit rule presentation
for external support (Li, 2017). Thus, explicit-deductive instruction appeared beneficial for low-aptitude
learners due to their limited LAA or preference for deductive learning conditions.
Conversely, the interaction effect of LAA with the two types of explicit grammar instruction was not
significant among learners with higher LAA. This finding partially supports those of Hwu et al. (2014) and
suggests that the interaction effects of LAA with a specific instructional method may vary depending on
the learner's level of LAA. Learners with higher LAA are presumed to possess more explicit knowledge of
the target structures and effectively utilise their LAA to access existing linguistic knowledge and formulate
grammatical patterns. However, explicit-inductive instruction did not lead to significantly greater
improvement for this group, likely because their explicit knowledge was not fully automatised (Suzuki &
DeKeyser, 2017b) under the learning conditions involving explicit rule presentation. As a result, both types
of explicit instruction may have benefited learners with higher LAA. Explicit-inductive approaches may
prove more effective for these learners under distributed practice conditions (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017a)
and longer-term instruction, facilitating the transition towards more implicit or automatised explicit
linguistic knowledge.
Although not the primary focus of this study, the LGCA results demonstrated a significant positive
relationship between LAA and language proficiency, while no significant association was found between
LAA and learning gain. These findings are consistent with prior research conducted by Erlam (2005) and
Farshi and Tavakili (2021), suggesting that explicit instruction and metalinguistic explanations may
mitigate the influence of LAA on instructional outcomes. The characteristics of the sentence correction test
employed in this study and the type of explicit instruction provided may explain these findings. In the
present study, both instruction groups received explicit presentations of the grammar rule before or after
the exploring phase. Moreover, the written sentence correction test used as both the pretest and the posttest
shared similar characteristics with the grammaticality judgement test utilised as the learning material.
In contrast, the participants with high and low LAA could access their explicit knowledge within the
cognitive processing demands after engaging in postinstructional exercises. The nature of the instructions
and the characteristics of the test may have facilitated the identification of ungrammatical words or phrases
in the sentences for participants with lower LAA, enabling them to perform comparably to those with higher
LAA on the test and thus neutralising the effects of individual differences in LAA on their learning
progression over time. In accordance with Li's (2013) hypothesis, a higher LAA may be associated with
the implicit learning of accessible structures within the limits of cognitive processing demands. LAA may

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 12

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

play a more significant role when learners are exposed to more implicit learning conditions or are
developing more automatised explicit knowledge (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017b).

Conclusion

The present study aimed to investigate the interactive effects of language proficiency and LAA on the
efficacy of two types of explicit grammar instruction in facilitating the accurate utilisation of target
structures among Japanese EFL learners. However, before concluding, it is crucial to acknowledge the
limitations of the study. First, the sample consisted of a relatively small number of participants (82), and
further subdivision into two groups resulted in even smaller group sizes. This limited sample size and
nonrepresentative sample may have influenced the results obtained in the study. Second, the absence of a
control group can be identified as another limitation, as the instructional procedures were implemented
within an educational institution as part of the mandated curriculum. The weaknesses that exist in the study
design, sample size, and selection methods could limit the validity of the study. However, despite the
abovementioned limitations, the findings of this study indicate that explicit-deductive grammar instruction
may offer more significant advantages than explicit-inductive instruction for Japanese EFL learners
characterised by low language proficiency and low LAA. Additionally, the results revealed a connection
between LAA and L2 language proficiency, while no significant association was found between LAA and
L2 learning gain under explicit learning conditions in Japanese EFL classrooms.
In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights for educators and instructional designers to consider
the interaction between language aptitude, language proficiency and instructional conditions when
designing practical learning activities in EFL classrooms. In terms of pedagogical implications, in
educational settings where classes can be organised according to proficiency levels, grammar teaching
methods can be organised according to the proficiency level of the class. For example, in beginner classes,
grammar can be taught deductively, and as proficiency increases, grammar rules can be inferred under
teacher guidance.
The interaction effects of language proficiency and language analytic ability on grammar instruction may
vary according to the linguistic distance between learners’ L1 and L2 or their educational and cultural
backgrounds. It would be useful to explore the effectiveness of different instructional approaches in varied
learning contexts.

The Author

Miki Satori is an associate professor in the Dep. of World Liberal Arts of Nagoya University of Foreign
Studies in Japan. Her main research interests include L2 pedagogy and the role of individual differences in
cognitive abilities in L2 learning. Her recent papers have appeared in scholarly journals, including Applied
Psycholinguistics (Cambridge University Press), International Journal of Listening (Routledge), and The
Language Learning Journal (Routledge).

Department of World Liberal Arts

Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
57 Takenoyama, Iwasaki-cho, Nisshin, Aichi, Japan
Tel: +81 561-74-1111
Email: msatori@nufs.ac.jp
Orcid Number: 0000-0002-5255-4430

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 13

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

References

Akmal, S., Rasyid, M. N. A., Masna, Y., & Soraya, C. N. (2020). EFL learners' difficulties in the structure
and written expression section of TOEFL test in an Indonesian university. Journal of Language,
Education, and Humanities, 7(2), 156–180. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v7i2.6472
Artieda, G., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The LLAMA tests and the underlying structure of language aptitude at
two levels of foreign language proficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 42–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.023
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb
tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921
Bokander, L. (2020). Language aptitude and crosslinguistic influence in initial L2 learning. Journal of the
European Second Language Association, 4(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.69
Chalmers, J., Eisenchlas, S. A., Munro, A., & Schalley, A. C. (2021). Sixty years of second language
aptitude research: A systematic quantitative literature review. Language and Linguistics Compass,
15(11), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12440
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a Miniature linguist
system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 196–221.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object
pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242–260.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00188
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language
acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr161oa
Farshi, N., & Tavakoli, M. (2021). Effects of differences in language aptitude on learning grammatical
collocations under elaborated input conditions. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 476–499.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819858443
Glaser, K. (2013). The neglected combination: A case for explicit-inductive instruction in teaching
pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 151–163.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1158
Granena, G. (2013). Cognitive aptitude for second language learning and the LLAMA language and
aptitude test. In G. Granena & M. Long (Eds.), Sensitive Periods, Language Aptitude, and Ultimate
L2 Attainment (pp.105–130). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.35.04gra
Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and inductive instructional
approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom.
Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb03202.x
Hassanzadeh, M., & Shahbazi, F. (2021). Explicit instruction of English articles: An appraisal of
consciousness-raising instruction and processing instruction frameworks. The Journal of Asia TEFL,
18(4), 1211–1233. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.4.9.1211
Hwu, F., Pan, W., & Sun, S. (2014). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A
latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 294–319.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510381
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in
working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
Kourtali, N., & Révész, A. (2020). The role of recast, task complexity, and aptitude in child second
language development. Language Learning, 70(1), 179–218. Portico.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12374

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 14

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual
differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3),
634–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A
meta-analytic view of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu054
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4),
801–842. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500042X
Li, S. (2017). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook
of instructed second language acquisition (pp.396–417). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-22
Li, S., & Fu, M. (2019). The association between cognitive aptitudes and oral task performance under
instructional conditions with or without pretask grammar instruction. In M. Sato & S. Loewen (Eds.),
Evidence-based second language pedagogy (pp.168–187). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351190558
Lucas, M. (2022). Exploring web-based contrastive instruction to enhance deictic referencing accuracy in
L2 spoken performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(3), 937–961.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.3.11.937
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. Lognostics.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and Quantitative meta-
analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a
meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
1770.2001.tb00017.x
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.
Phillips, D. (2004). Longman introductory course for the TOEFL test: The paper test. Pearson Education.
Saito, K. (2017). Effects of sound, vocabulary, and grammar learning aptitude on adult second language
speech attainment in foreign language classrooms. Language Learning, 67(3), 665–693.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12244
Saito, Y. (2012). Translation in English learning teaching in Japan. Kobama Journal of English Education,
3, 27–36. https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/records/2000952
Sato, Y. (2020). The relationship between L2 beginners’ proficiency, aptitude, and phonological working
memory. KATE Journal, 34, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.20806/katejournal.34.0_29
Sato, Y. (2021). Effects of recasts, explicit correction and metalinguistic prompts on L2 knowledge of the
English past tense. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(2), 390–405.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.2.1.390
Satori. M. (2023). The role of automatised and non-automatised explicit knowledge in general L2
proficiency. The Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2023
Shi, D., Lee, T., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2019). Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(2), 310–334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017a). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An
Aptitude × Treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(1), 27–56.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000084
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017b). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language
learning: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4),
747–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12241
Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Bazhutkina, I., Steringa, S., Hummel, I., & Suhre, C. (2016). Comparing
inductive and deductive grammatical instruction in teaching German as a foreign language in
Dutch classrooms. System, 63, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.09.002

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 15

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from
two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 59–95.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000455
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S.P., and York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided Inductive versus a
deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate-level college French classroom.
Foreign Language Annals, 44, 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01133.x
Yalçın, Ş., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty: An EFL Classroom-Based
Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 239–263.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000509
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity
and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344–368.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams044

(Received June 12, 2023; Revised December 28, 2023; Accepted March 10, 2024)

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 16

Miki Satori The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2024, 1-17

Appendix A

Samples Used in the Learning Materials

Rule: S-V agreement

Exemplars
1. The subject of the lectures was quite interesting (grammatical).
2. The supplies for the camping trip needs to be packed. (ungrammatical)
3. The chairs under the table in the dining room is quite comfortable. (ungrammatical)
4. The players on the winning team in the competition were very talented. (grammatical)
5. The food for the guests at the party are on the long tables. (ungrammatical)

Appendix B

PowerPoint Slide Samples Used in the Rule Presentation

S-V agreement Rules S-V agreement Rules

1. S-V agreement after prepositional phrases 2. S-V Agreement after expressions of quantity
When a phrase comes between the subject and the verb, the When the subject is an expression of quantity ( all, most, some )
verb still agrees with the subject,not the noun or pronoun in using of, the verb agree with the object ( what follows the
the phrase following the subject of the sentence. preposition of of ).

(All, Most, Some, Half, Part) of the (object) V

S (prepositional phrase) V

Examples Examples
The student (with all the master’s degrees) is very motivated. Most of the food was delicious.
The focus (of the interviews) was nine selected participants. Most of the meals were delicious.
Some of the movie was just too violent for me.

Appendix C

Sample of the Sentence Correction Test

The principles of physics described by Christian Doppler in 1842 for the movement of stars has been
adapted to evaluate the movement of blood within the heart.

Make corrections: ( has )→( have )

 2024 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 17