The Comparative Effects of Inductive and Deductive Sequences in Programed Instruction

Abstract

Should students be asked to induce general rules and principles from the problems they solve and the facts they receive? Or will they learn and retain more if they are given the generalizations and are asked to deduce specific applications? Empirical evidence has not supported any one consistent set of hypotheses with regard to the relative efficacy of the inductive and deductive teaching methods. Some studies reported the inductive method superior (Haslerud and Meyers, 1958; Hendrix, 1947; Kersh, 1958; Ray, 1961); others reported findings in favor of the deductive method (Craig, 1953, 1956; Fowler, 1931). Still other studies found the two methods equally effective (Forgus and Schwartz, 1957; Nichols, 1957; Sobel, 1956). In Sobel's study, however, the high-IQ subjects did respond better to the inductive method; whereas neither Fowler nor Ray found a significant interaction between teaching method and intelligence. Previous experiments testing inductive versus deductive methods have not controlled two variables important in learning: (a) amount of participation by the learner, and (b) amount of information given to the learner prior to and following problem-solving activities. Characteristically, subjects in deductive groups have been passive, engaged in observing teacher presentations. Subjects in inductive groups have tended to be more active, involved in verbal or motor activities, or both, during the training periods. Thus, it has not always been clear whether it was the difference in method or the difference in activity level that produced the different outcomes. The amount of information feedback has also varied between inductive and deductive groups. Typically, more information has been given to sub-