Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context: Paper-based and product-based instructions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3227Keywords:
English writing, EFL, inductive, tangible, teachingAbstract
The study reported in this article compared two different inductive instructional methods implemented in a Business English writing training, including paper-based instruction (PPI) and product-based instruction (PDI). It assessed the effectiveness and examined practical issues of the implementation of each method. A total of 46 Thai students majoring Business English program in a Thai university took part in this study. The students were randomly divided into two groups and put into either PPI or PDI training module. Data were collected from direct observations, focused-group discussions, and students’ writing scores. Qualitative data from the focused-group discussions and observation field notes were analyzed thematically using the grounded theory while students’ writing scores were cross-examined. Results of the study indicate that the fundamental dichotomies between both approaches include the tangibility, authenticity and contextuality. Students’ difficulties in formulating grammar and rules in writing on their own, and students’ perception of learning as a burden were found as the challenges occurred in both modules. The findings also indicate that both PPI and PDI modules trigger the dynamics and positive atmosphere; however, PDI resulted in more vigorous dynamics as student movements and interactions were relatively higher. Finally The findings of this study are beneficial instructors who are seeking innovative instructional methodology to improve their teaching of business English writing. Based on the findings of this study, PDI will enable instructors to create chances for students to learn in authentic professional environments, contexts and culture that are casted in the real-life business situations.
References
decade in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 39(4),181-189.
Albino, G. (2015). The effect of an explicit genre-based approach to teaching workplace writing. EdD
thesis. The Open University.
Al-Mohammadi, S.A. & Derbel, E. (2015). To whom do we write? : Audience in EFL composition
classes. In: Methodologies for Effective Writing Instruction in EFL and ESL Classrooms (pp.197-208).
Angluin, D. & Smith, C.H. (1983). Inductive inference: Theory and methods. ACM Computing Surveys,
15(3), 237–269.
Antle, A. N. & Wise, A. F. (2013). Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to
inform tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers, 25(1), 1-20.
Arputhamalar, A. & Kannan, S.P. (2015). Growth of Business English and the need to teach memo-
writing skills to Indian tertiary-level learners. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 3(2), 74-83.
Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition ambiguities and complexities of the didactic
reality. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 95–118.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. NY: Basic Books.
Hollis-Turner, S. & Scholtz, D. (2010). Business writing in academic and workplace contexts. Southern
African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28(3), 239–246. DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2010.545026
Holton, J.A. (2010). The coding process and its challenges. The Grounded Theory Review, 9(1), 21-38.
Huda, M.C. & Gumilang, W.A. (2017). The effectiveness of using animation clips in teaching writing. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(2), 63-79.
Kamina, P. & Iyer, N. N. (2009). From concrete to abstract: Teaching for transfer of learning when using manipulatives. Proceedings of the 2009 Northern Educational Research Association (NERA) Annual Conference, Connecticut, United States of America.
Lave, J. & E. Wenger. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle
Motha, H. (2013). The effect of deductive and inductive learning strategies on language acquisition
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Tillburg University, Tillburg.
O'Donnell, A.M., Reeve, J., & Smith, J.K. (2011). Educational psychology: Reflection for action. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Paretti C.M. (2006). Audience awareness: Leveraging problem-based learning to teach workplace communication practices. Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(2), 189–198.
Perfors, A. (2014). Induction in language learning. In In PJ Brooks and V Kempe (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Language Development (pp. 281-283).
Peter, H. (2016). Product descriptions: Elements and specifications. Retrieved from
https://smarter-ecommerce.com/blog/en/ecommerce/product-descriptions-elements-and-specifications/
Rizzuto, F.M. (1970). Experimental comparison of inductive and deductive methods of teaching concepts of language structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 63(6), 269-273.
Rungwaraphong, P. (2018). Framework for dialogic teaching in English reading class: A practice guide for university lecturers. Journal of Humanities, 15(2), 59-76.
Rüütmann, T., & Kipper, H. (2011). Teaching strategies for direct and indirect instruction in teaching engineering. In Interactive Collborative Learning (ICL) 2011 14th International Conference on IEEE (pp.107-114).
Schneider, B. & Andre J. (2005). University preparation for workplace writing. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2),195–218.
Tang, E. (2012). To teach more or more to teach: Vocabulary-based instruction in Chinese EFL classroom. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 14(1), 254-297.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman
Trochim, W. & Donnelly, J. (2006). The research methods knowledge base. OH: Atomic Dog Publishing Inc
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Widodo, A. (2006). Peningkatan Kemampuan Siswa SD untuk Mengajukan Pertanyaan Produktif. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 4(1), 1-12.
Yeung, S. S., Ng, M. L., & King, R. B. (2016). English vocabulary instruction through storybook reading for Chinese EFL Kindergarteners: Comparing rich, embedded, and incidental approaches. Asian EFL Journal, 18, 81-104.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish in ELTEJ agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the ELTEJ right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
