Impact of Activity Theory-Based Instruction on Business Writing Accuracy among Intermediate EFL Learners: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Shabnam Salehnia
1
(
Department of English Language Teaching, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
)
Mortaza Aslrasouli
2
(
Department of English Language Teaching, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
)
Sorayya Behroozizad
3
(
Department of English Language Teaching, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
)
Keywords: Activity Theory-Based Instruction, EFL Business Writing, Writing Accuracy,
Abstract :
This study investigates the effect of Activity Theory-Based Instruction (ATBI) on improving the accuracy of business writing among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. Writing accuracy, a critical aspect of effective business communication, refers to the ability to produce grammatically correct, error-free language. Traditional methods, which often emphasize rote grammar exercises, may not fully equip learners for the demands of accurate business writing. ATBI, rooted in socio-cultural theory, provides a framework that encourages learners to engage in meaningful, goal-directed activities that foster real-world language use. The research was conducted with Iranian EFL learners, using a pre-test/post-test design to measure the improvement in writing accuracy. The study focused on aspects such as grammatical precision, correct vocabulary usage, and syntactical structure. Results revealed that learners exposed to ATBI made significant progress in writing accuracy, producing texts with fewer grammatical and structural errors. This improvement is attributed to ATBI’s emphasis on repeated, context-driven writing tasks that help learners internalize language rules in practical, communicative settings. The findings demonstrate that ATBI is a powerful tool for enhancing accuracy in business writing by enabling learners to practice language in authentic scenarios. This study underscores the importance of adopting instructional methods like ATBI that move beyond isolated grammar instruction and promote accurate language use in professional writing contexts.
Akhtar, M., Khan, A., & Kiran, S. (2014). The impact of activity-based learning on students'
motivation and learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 23-35.
Arrent, S. (2003). An investigation into the accuracy of writing performance in EFL learners.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 349-363.
Benko, S. (2016). Scaffolding: An exploration of teacher talk during guided reading. Journal of
Literacy Research, 48(1), 29-60.
Bhatia, V. (2006). Genre analysis: An investigation of genre-based writing practices. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 83-101.
Chen, H. (2005). Task-based instruction: A method for improving EFL learners’ writing.
Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 27-59.
Culham, R. (2005). 6+1 Traits of Writing: The Complete Guide for Primary Grades. Scholastic.
Dastjerdi, H., & HayatiSamian, S. (2011). The effectiveness of task-based instruction on
improving EFL learners' writing. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 65-76.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engeström, Y. (2014). Activity theory and learning: An introduction. Cambridge Handbook of
Learning Sciences, 24, 67-83.
Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners' writing skills: Problems, factors, and
suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4(2), 81-92.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve
reading. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 710-744.
Hyland, K. (2008). Writing theories and writing instruction: The shift from product to process.
Language Teaching, 41(2), 205-219.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2020). Genre and second language writing. In R. Manchón & P.
Matsuda (Eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 65-80). Routledge.
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures.
Heinemann.
Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Activity theory and second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.),
Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 20-39). Routledge.
Lea, M. R., & Jones, S. (2018). Digital literacy in higher education: Exploring textual practices.
Studies in Higher Education, 26(4), 377-393.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Prior, P., & Shipka, J. (2019). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity.
In C. Bazerman & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies (pp. 180-238). Colorado
State University.
Rahimpor, M. (2008). Task complexity and variation in L2 learners' output. International Review
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(4), 365-380.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional Language
Centre Journal, 36(1), 10-24.
Russell, D. R., & Yanez, A. (2019). Activity theory in the writing classroom: Collaborative
writing and genre knowledge. Journal of Writing Research, 11(1), 25-43.
Sermsook, K., Liamnimit, S., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). The impact of error analysis on EFL
writing. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 158-167.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2008). Task repetition and second language learning. Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 168-191.
Tardy, C. M., & Swales, J. M. (2011). Genre analysis: Exploring the dynamics of academic
discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 55-69.
Yan, Y., & Yang, X. (2017). Adaptation of activity theory for language learning in different
contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 559-576.