Escherichia coli, originally known as Bacterium coli commune, was identified in 1885 by the German pediatrician, Theodor Escherich (14, 29). E. coli is widely distributed in the intestine of humans and warm-blooded animals and is the predominant facultative anaerobe in the bowel and part of the essential intestinal flora that maintains the physiology of the healthy host (9, 29). E. coli is a member of the family Enterobacteriaceae (15), which includes many genera, including known pathogens such as Salmonella, Shigella, and Yersinia. Although most strains of E. coli are not regarded as pathogens, they can be opportunistic pathogens that cause infections in immunocompromised hosts. There are also pathogenic strains of E. coli that when ingested, causes gastrointestinal illness in healthy humans (see Chap. 4A).
CAUTION: To observe for fluorescence, examine inoculated LST-MUG tubes under longwave (365 nm) UV light in the dark. A 6-watt hand-held UV lamp is adequate and safe. When using a more powerful UV source, such as a 15-watt fluorescent lamp, wear protective glasses or goggles. Also, prior to use in MUG assays, examine all glass tubes for auto fluorescence. Cerium oxide, which is sometimes added to glass as a quality control measure, will fluoresce under UV light and interfere with the MUG test (25). The use of positive and negative control strains for MUG reaction is essential.
essential grammar in use 4th edition pdf 24
Jon Hird, materials writer and teacher trainer, discusses inductive and deductive grammar teaching, comparing and contrasting the two, and debating the pros and cons of their use in the classroom.
There are two main ways that we tend to teach grammar: deductively and inductively. Both deductive and inductive teaching have their pros and cons and which approach we use when can depend on a number of factors, such as the nature of the language being taught and the preferences of the teacher and learners. It is, however, perhaps generally accepted that a combination of both approaches is best suited for the EFL classroom.
Deductive reasoning is essentially a top-down approach which moves from the more general to the more specific. In other words, we start with a general notion or theory, which we then narrow down to specific hypotheses, which are then tested. Inductive reasoning is more of a bottom-up approach, moving from the more specific to the more general, in which we make specific observations, detect patterns, formulate hypotheses and draw conclusions.
Both approaches are commonplace in published materials. Some course books may adhere to one approach or the other as series style, whereas some may be more flexible and employ both approaches according to what the language being taught lends itself to. Most inductive learning presented in course books is guided or scaffolded. In other words, exercises and questions guide the learner to work out the grammar rule. The following course book extracts illustrate the two different approaches. The subsequent practice exercises are similar in both course books.
Nevertheless, while there are pros and cons to both approaches and while a combination of both inductive and deductive grammar teaching and learning is probably inevitable, an inductive approach does seem to be broadly accepted as being more efficient in the long run, at least for some learners. Would you agree with this?
Haight, C., Herron, C., & Cole, S. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 288-309.
I love it! Unless a hard and fast grammar rule is available, I prefer the inductive approach; given the nature of English, this means i prefer the inductive approach in general. The other nice thing about the inductive approach is that it can piggy-back on a topic, increases the relevance and interest of the lesson. Basically, we provide an entree of topic X with a side order of grammar.
Hi, your article teaching grammar and which approach is more convenient is so interesting. Personally I would rather teach grammam inductively .because from the patterns learners can conclude the rules. From my experiences in teaching the inductive approach seems more convenient than the deductive one, though things in teaching and approaches are relative. Slimane
Respect to your opinions ,I prefer to use inductive approche in order to teach or learn grammars and drills can be so helpful too.The advantages are more than disadvantages of course. Appreciate for your fantastic explanations
What I think happens with rules is that they get forgotten after time, no matter how they are taught but if the target language is used continuously, eventually the user internalises the rule intuitively and knows how to use grammar accurately. So, language learning is a deductive-inductive continuum whose goal is to to stop thinking about the rule and produce appropriate language automatically.
Learning a language should be a discovery, not a rough explanation of the language structure. It would be way much better to introduce a grammar topic by giving examples rather than showing a grammar formula and then the examples. Since grammar is implicit in a language, it should be taught that way, so that students can interact with the language, using it in a diverse variety of situations, instead of a strict thinking with no margin of discovery.
Using the inductive technique is important in order to avoid translation. It also helps students to understand the grammar in context. There are some students who may struggle at the beginning using this technique since they are used to the deductive technique, but I think, they get used to the inductive technique eventually.
This web-friendly presentation of the original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. Any irregularities with regard to grammar, syntax, spelling, or punctuation are as they exist in the original e-text archives. 2ff7e9595c
Commentaires