







































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48  34 

       10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3227                                 http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index          eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id 

Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an 

EFL context: Paper-based and product-based instructions 

Piyawan Rungwaraphong 

Faculty of Commerce and Management 

Prince of Songkla University, Trang Campus, 102 Khuan Pring, Mueang Trang District, Trang 92000, Thailand 

piyawan.r@psu.ac.th  

 

 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT  

 

 

Article history 

Received 15 December 2021 

Revised 16 April 2021 

Accepted 20 April 2021 

 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 in a Business English program at a Thai university participated 
in this study. The students were randomly divided into two groups and 
put into either the PPI or PDI training module. The researcher collected 
data 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 cross-examination was utilized for students’ writing scores. 
The study results indicate that the fundamental dichotomies between both 
approaches include tangibility, authenticity, and contextuality. Students’ 
difficulties in formulating grammar and writing rules on their own and 
students’ perception of learning as a burden were found as challenges in 
both modules. The findings also indicate that both the PPI and PDI 
modules trigger classroom dynamics and a positive atmosphere; 
however, PDI resulted in more vigorous dynamics as student movements 
and interactions were relatively higher. Finally, this study’s findings are 
beneficial for instructors seeking innovative instructional methodology to 
improve their Business English writing teaching. The study has 
contributed to the field of teaching Business English writing. The study’s 
findings have helpful implications for lecturers of Business English 
writing, who are looking for a teaching approach that enables them to 
create opportunities for students to learn in authentic, professional 
environments, contexts, and cultures cast in real-life business situations. 

 

This is an open-access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

 

    

 

Keywords 

English writing  

EFL  

inductive  

tangible 

teaching 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Rungwaraphong, P. (2021). Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL 
context: Paper-based and product-based instructions. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 4(1), 
34-48. doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3227 

1. Introduction 

In EFL contexts, the goal of Business English writing courses provided in higher education is dual: 
firstly, to improve students’ command of business-related English, and secondly, to provide a good 
grounding and adequate understanding of the principles of business so that students can create 
business-related content. Challenges in teaching Business English writing for EFL students are student 
engagement in writing tasks and covering the writing materials or tasks. Additionally, particularly in 
EFL contexts, uncovering teaching approaches that assist students in achieving the dual goal of 
Business English writing is essential. However, literature undertaken so far suggests significant 

file:///E:/Download/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3227
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:piyawan.r@psu.ac.th
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0853-0597
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3227&domain=pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 35 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

differences between Business English writing in educational contexts and English writing required in 
real-life business situations (Hollis-Turne & Scholtz, 2010). It is important that business writing 
courses consist of learning activities and tasks that enable students to transfer knowledge from the 
classroom to what is required of them in the workplace. This suggests a need for a teaching approach 
that will create a linkage between the two situations; the approach, at the same time, must not forget 
to focus on the development of the grammatical and syntactic aspects of the English language. 

In searching for an instructional approach that ensures both students’ development of English 
writing competence and the capability to transfer writing skills from the academic environment to the 
workplace, the researcher framed two instructional methods upon the theory of inductive references. 
Both teaching methods involve the students observing examples of the target language provided by 
the teacher, identifying patterns or concepts implicit in those examples, formulating rules or principles, 
and applying or creating a piece of work using those rules or principles in the target language. The 
differences exist in the process of eliciting data for the writing. The study reported in this article seeks 
to evaluate and compare the implementation and the challenges of the two instructional approaches 
implemented in English writing contexts; both are inductive-based and designed by the researcher to 
serve the dual goal of Business English writing teaching. The inductive instruction methods 
investigated include Paper-Based Instruction and Product-Based Instruction (hereafter called PPI and 
PDI, respectively).  Results from this study make contributions to the field of teaching Business 
English writing. The study’s findings have helpful implications for lecturers of Business English 
writing, who are looking for a teaching approach that enables students to write professionally and 
learn in authentic, professional environments. 

1.1. Business Writing in Real Business Vs. Academic Contexts 

Business writing courses provided in academic contexts aim to ensure that students become 
competent in producing business writing genres that they will be required to produce in the workplace. 
However, literature about business writing indicates a vast difference between business writing 
courses provided by educational institutions and business writing required by graduates to complete 
in real business environments. The difference is rooted in the fact that business writing offered at 
universities is influenced by educational policies and educational requirements such as curriculum and 
assessment. Likewise, Hollis-Turner and Scholtz’s (2010) study of business writing in academic and 
workplace contexts claims that the disjuncture results from the different requirements that higher 
education and the real-life working world have.  

Recognizing the above disjuncture, business writing lecturers try to stimulate business writing 
prevalent in real business contexts. However, they frequently have “to simplify and de-contextualize” 
(Hollis-Turner& Scholtz, 2010, p.241) documents and learning tasks for learning purposes. The de-
contextualization of teaching business writing also occurs because of the audience.  Al-Mohammadi 
and Derbel (2015) pointed out that the teacher is the sole audience of students’ works in the classroom. 
However, the students may not perceive their teacher as the audience of their writing; instead, they 
generally perceive the teacher as the evaluator. The study’s findings claim that students’ awareness of 
the audience is important as it affects their writing performance. The study suggests that de-
contextualized writing activities should be avoided, and the teacher should clearly define the 
“particular audience” in all writing tasks and assignments. The study by Albino (2015) examined the 
effect of an explicit genre-based approach to teaching writing for learners of English as a foreign 
language in the workplace. The study results suggest that an explicit genre-based approach is a suitable 
approach in teaching writing for the workplace for EFL learners. 

Whether business writing should be taught with contextualization or de-contextualization, or 
implicitly or explicitly, is still controversial. No matter which approach is employed in teaching 
business writing, contextualizing or de-contextualizing, or explicitly or implicitly, the lecturers need 
to be aware of the demands of the real business world and train the students to meet the demands of 
the business world (Arputhamalar & Kannan, 2015). This signifies that learning activities or exercises 
in class must be designed in ways that bridge the gap between academic and business contexts while 
enhancing students’ capability to transfer what is taught in the classroom to what is required in the 
workplace (Hollis-Turner & Scholtz, 2010). 

 

 



36 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

1.2 Deductive & Inductive Approaches 

Nunan (1999) described the deductive teaching approach as the instructional method that begins 
with “rules and principles and then applies the rules to particular examples and instances” (p.305). 
Examples given to students are often de-contextualized, and the students may not be required to make 
meaning of the structures presented. At the end of the lesson, the students produce their sentences by 
applying the rules highlighted by the teacher (Thornbury, 1999). In this light, deductive teaching 
underlines top-down reasoning, moving from more general to more specific. 

In contrast to the deductive approach, the inductive approach works the other way around.  It is 
called a “bottom-up” approach, deriving general rules and principles from specific examples. 
According to Thornbury (1999), the inductive approach begins with the examples given to the 
students. The students then observe and notice patterns implicit in the examples provided. They 
formulate the rules or principles, and after that, apply the patterns or rules in the target language. 
Rizzuto (1970) regarded the inductive method as the discovery experience in which the learner is 
accompanied by the teacher’s guidance and verbal cues. However, the deductive method is regarded 
as a “didactic expository” (Rizzuto, 1970, p. 269) learning mode. Learners do not need to make any 
discovery and are directly exposed to the lessons. The experimental comparison of both deductive and 
inductive methods concluded that the inductive approach is the superior language teaching method.  
The deductive method brings about greater learning in the initial stage, and the time it takes to learn 
is diminutive. In contrast, the inductive method consumes more time as it requires students to discover 
language structure concepts independently. However, it renders better retention in the long term. 

In the same light, Thornbury (1999) notes that knowledge acquired through inductive instructional 
methods is more profound than ones through deductive methods. An inductive approach, as compared 
to a deductive approach, is a more complex and indirect instructional method and functions in the 
higher level of the learner’s cognitive domain. According to Rüütmann and Kipper (2011), the 
sequence of learning – “facts-rules-action” in the deductive approach and “concepts-patterns-
abstractions” in the inductive approach – results in differences in learning outcomes, particularly 
problem-solving and critical-thinking. Importantly, inductive teaching methods are believed to trigger 
learners’ autonomy. It shifts learners’ roles, from the learner as the receiver of knowledge to the 
learner as the actor of the learning process-actively discovering rules (Motha, 2013).   

In language education, induction is associated with a human’s first language acquisition. That is to 
say, humans learn and acquire their first language implicitly and inductively. As Vygotsky (1986) 
explained, human cognition initiates from social communication and involvement in social activities.  
In the same light, Perfors (2014) maintained that children learn and acquire their first language by 
induction; they hear specific examples of phonemes, morphology, words, and sentences, from which 
they formulate the general principles of the language. 

1.3. Paper-based Instruction and Product-based Instruction (PPI & PDI) 

The researcher designed and created Paper-Based Instruction (PPI) and Product-Based Instruction 
(PDI) in response to a call for a teaching approach that will ensure the transfer of skills taught in 
academic contexts to skills required in real business situations. Both instructional approaches embrace 
Rizzuto’s (1970) inductive teaching philosophy, emphasizing learners’ opportunities to discover 
knowledge. PPI and PDI give equal importance to lecturers’ and students’ skills to communicate 
dialogically and interrogate their learning process. Literature shows that dialogic communication and 
interrogation in the classroom, either student-student or teacher-student, play an essential role in 
students’ knowledge acquisition. Rungwaraphong (2018) emphasized the importance of teacher’s 
questioning skills, including choosing, crafting, and using questions with students to achieve learning 
goals. These skills determine both the quantity and quality of communication during the learning 
process. Dialogue differs from ordinary conversation or discussion in terms of the atmosphere and 
goal. It emphasizes the process of questioning and responding and welcomes different points of view 
regarding the disharmony of voices as an opportunity for deeper understanding (Rungwaraphong, 
2018). Figure 1 illustrates tasks and learning activities underpinning each instructional module.    

Each step in this diagram portrays the learning activities required for English writing. As illustrated 
in Figure 1, both inductive modules implemented in English writing cover eight steps, sharing five 
common procedures, while the differences exist in the other three procedures.  Just like other inductive 
approaches, both the PPI and the PDI approaches showing, noticing, discovering, and discussing. Both 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 37 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

inductive approaches require the students to notice and analyze examples of writing pieces; 
discovering writing rules occurs through this analysis. The differences between the two methods line 
in Steps 4, 5, and 8. After the discovery and formulation of rules in Steps 2 and 3, the medium for 
writing, the product to be written about, is introduced. In the PPI method, the students are given 
product factsheets, which contain detailed information pertaining to the product. In this light, the 
students perform the given product analysis but do so with the product images, not the authentic 
products. 

 

Fig. 1.  Comparison of procedures and learning activities in PPI & PDI modules 

1.4. Research Objectives 

The study aimed to investigate the two methods’ dichotomy, examine practical issues of the 
implementation, including the challenges of each method, and give suggestions for English instructors 
who wish to adopt either of these two methods in their English writing class. The study specifically 
sought to answer the following three research questions:  

1. What are the similarities and differences in the implementation between these two inductive 
modules?   

2. What are the challenges of each inductive module?  
3. Which approach is more appropriate for teaching English writing to Thai learners? 

2. Method 

2.1 Participants and Setting 

The participants of the current study were 46 students from a Thai university. All of them were 
second-year Business English majors, aged approximately 19-20 years old. There were 10 (21.7%) 



38 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

males and 36 (78.3%) females. All of them have taken two business writing courses prior to taking 
part in the study: Fundamental English Writing in Year 1 and Business English Writing I in year 2. 

The participants were randomly divided into two equal groups and put into two writing training 
modules: the paper-based module and the product-based module. The researcher organized the 
training and sought to prepare business students to be effective writers and give high proportions of 
interactions and decisions required in written communication in business environments. 

2.2 Data Collection 

Three data collection methods were applied in gathering the data to answer the research questions: 
(1) direct observation, (2) focused group discussion, and (3) students’ writing scores. The collection 
methods will be discussed further in detail. 

1) Direct observation  

Direct observation is a data collection method in which the researcher acts as the evaluator, 
watching the subjects in their usual environment without intruding or intervening. This method aims 
to assess behavior, events, or situations that are going on in their natural environment (Adamson & 
Wachsmuth,2017). As for the current study, the participants were directly observed during their 
participation in the learning activities in weeks 1-4. In each session, the researcher walked around the 
training room and observed each group while doing the assigned learning activities. The observations 
were overt, as the students were informed about the purpose of the observation.  Data from the 
observations were collected through non-motion photos and recorded in the researcher’s field notes, 
containing a list of processes or behaviors observed with space to record open-ended data. 

2) Focused group discussion 

Focused group discussion was adopted to gain an in-depth understanding of using inductive 
approaches in teaching English writing. The study carried out two group discussions - one discussion 
per module.  Each discussion group consisted of four students; each group selected their representative 
to join the discussion. Questions asked in the discussion sought to elicit attitudinal responses and their 
perspectives on the instructional method they had experienced in the writing training. Importantly, 
they were asked to select the most preferred module and give reasons for the preference. Also, the 
participants were asked to report things they liked and disliked about each learning approach. The 
focused group discussions were administered in the final week of the research study and took about 
20-30 minutes for each group discussion. The discussions were audio-recorded. 

3) Students’ Writing Scores 

The students in both training modules were to achieve the same goal: writing a product description.  
The researcher assessed their product descriptions using the same scoring criteria, which was adapted 
from Huda and Gumilang’s (2019) scoring rubric of writing test and Peter’s (2016) blog on product 
description.  The rubric assesses five elements of the strong product description, as illustrated in Table 
1. 

2.3 Research Procedure 

Each training module covered four weeks; there were two sessions a week, making eight sessions 
for each module. Each session was 45 minutes. Activities and tasks in both the PPI and PDI modules 
were organized around a cooperative learning ground. Students were divided into groups of 4-5 
members and carried out the given assignments on a group basis. In this light, the writing assignments 
were done as a group assignment. Each module’s implementation follows steps described in Paper-
based Instruction (PPI) and Product-based Instruction (PDI). The observations were conducted once 
a week (in weeks 1-4) to collect data, making eight observations in total. In week five, the students 
completed their product description and submitted it to the researcher. The research was closed with 
the focused-group discussions in week six. The research procedure and data collection are presented 
in Figure 2. 

 

 

 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 39 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2.  Research procedures 

Note. The diagram shows the research methods used throughout the study. 

Table 1.  Rubrics for Assessing the Product Description Assignment 

Components Score Level Indicator 

Content 4 Excellent Present sufficient well-chosen information and features that focus on the 

product’s benefits and enable the reader to identify what the product is 

within the title easily. 

3 Good  Present information and features about the product that partly focus on the 
product’s benefits and reflect the product 

2 Fair Present some information and features about the product, which make it 

hard for the reader to identify the product and perceive the benefits of the 

product 
1 Poor Present no clear information and do not include sufficient features of the 

product 

 

Vocabulary  4 Excellent Use powerful words that sell; vocabulary chosen focuses on benefits and 
results 

3 Good  Use words used that are not much powerful; and contain some errors in 

vocabulary but not interfere with understanding 

2 Fair Words used are dull and contain some errors sometimes in vocabulary that 
sometimes interfere with understanding 

1 Poor Contain many errors in vocabulary choices, which severely interfere with 

understanding 

 

Grammar 4 Excellent Good in grammar, no errors in grammar 

3 Good  Contain   errors in grammar but do not interfere with understanding 

2 Fair Contain errors in grammar that slightly interfere with understanding 

1 Poor Contain errors in grammar that severely interfere with understanding 
 

Visual Appeal 4 Excellent Include clear and appealing images that provide multiple angels of the 

product so that the reader is induced to read the description of the product 

3 Good  Include images of the product, but not provide multiple angels of the 
product  

2 Fair Include some images of the product 

1 Poor Do not have any image of the product 

 

Organization  4 Excellent The product’s specs or features are well structured in paragraphs and bullet 

lists in a way that engages the reader’s emotion 

3 Good  The product’s specs or features are well structured in paragraphs and bullet 

lists, but not much engages the reader’s emotion. 
2 Fair The product’s specs or features are slightly scattered throughout the writing 

1 Poor The product’s specs or features are fairly scattered throughout the writing, 

which looks confusing for the reader 

 



40 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

 

2.4 Data Analysis  

Data gathered from focused-group discussions were qualitative and were codified and analyzed by 
thematic analysis. Data gathered from direct observations were recorded in the researcher’s 
observation field notes; non-motion pictures taken in training were cross-examined for comparison 
and contrast. Qualitative data from the focused-group discussions and observation field notes were 
analyzed thematically using the grounded theory, which seeks to construct or discover a theory from 
the data (Tie, Birks & Francis, 2019). In the current study, substantive coding procedures were 
adopted. The line-by-line open coding of data and constant data comparison was carried out to ensure 
the data supported emerging categories and proceeded until a core category emerged. The basis of the 
emerging theory was done by selecting core categories and theoretically connect to other relevant 
categories. Once the relevant categories were saturated, the research is theoretically complete. The 
written product descriptions of each of the students’ groups were given codes at the back of the paper 
so that the researcher did not know from which module of learning it was written. Each writing piece 
was then assessed using the scoring criteria adapted from Huda and Gumilang’s (2019) scoring rubric 
of writing test and Peter’s (2016) blog on product description. 

2.5 The Study’s Trustworthiness and Credibility 

The trustworthiness and credibility of the current study were achieved through data triangulation 
and data saturation. Data can be triangulated when they are collected from multiple participants and 
by multiple methods. It can be called cross-examination and is a technique to double or even triple-
check the findings of a study (Nightingale, 2020). It is also a means to add richness and depth of the 
study (Heale & Forbes, 2013). In the current study, validity occurs when data from different methods 
and participants yield the same results (Carter et al., 2014). Data saturation was the other technique 
employed in the current study to enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings. This 
technique is regarded as the “gold standard” (Hancock et al., 2016) for analyzing qualitative data, 
enhancing the credibility of the research findings. In the current study, data saturation was achieved 
through focused-group discussions, in which questions were structured to facilitate asking different 
participants. The focused group discussion helped attain the truth through the discussion’s openness 
and received multiple perspectives about the studied situation. Codes identified in the thematic 
analysis of the focused group discussion were also assessed for code saturation to ensure that the same 
category of codes would also be identified in the discussions from the other groups of participants 
(Hennink et al., 2017). Code saturation occurred when no further coding was identified.  In this light, 
data saturation enabled the researcher to ensure the data adequacy, signifying that no information is 
missing and thus the findings are trustworthy (Faulkner & Trotter, 2017). 

3. Findings and Discussion 

3.1 Dichotomy and Similarity  

Photos taken during the observations and the researcher’s views relevant to PPI and PDI modules 
are tabulated in Table 2. Table 2 illustrates the classroom dynamics that occur in both modules.  

It could be noticed from the photos that although PPI and PDI modules were both inductively 
conducted in a cooperative ground whereby students carried out their tasks as a group, the overall 
dynamics were different. The different proportions of dynamics were displayed right away in the 
second step of the learning process: handling/finding the medium and eliciting information. First of 
all, classroom dynamics occur more when all students are involved in activities and discussions. PPI 
students were given the product’s factsheets to be written about, which provided detailed information 
about the product and its production, as shown in Photo A. Further queries relevant to the product 
could be asked of the teacher. Unlike the PPI students, the PDI students had to leave the classroom 
environment and elicit information about the product’s production with the product producer. In this 
light, the activity for eliciting information is performed by the students in the PDI module. It is to be 
noted that the information elicited by the PDI students was first-hand and authentic as it was either 
provided by the product producer or elicited through real engagement with the product (as shown in 
Photos H and I, in which the students examined the product). Table 2 shows that classroom dynamics 
also occurred through student-student interactions and student-teacher interactions. 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 41 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

 

Table 2.  Learning Activities Carried out by PPI and PDI Students 

Inductive Learning 

Process 

PPI 

(Researcher’s notes/images) 

PDI 

(Researcher’s notes/images) 

Step 1: Showing, 

noticing, discovering & 

formulating   

Same in both modules: students observed and analyzed examples of product descriptions 

given by the lecturer. Then they discussed, wrote the pattern noticed, and formulated rules 

and principles of the product description. 

Step 2: 

Handling/Finding the 

medium & eliciting 

information   

(1) Product Factsheet provided by a lecturer 

Photo A 

 

*Whole class got the same product factsheet of the 

same one product. 

(2) More information can be acquired from the 

lecturer 

(3) Discuss around factsheet 

Photo B 

 

Photo C 

 

(1) Real products brought to 

class by the students 

Photo F 

 

Photo G 

 

(2) Business owner / Product 

producer 

(3) Discuss around real products 

Photo H 

 

Photo I 

 

Step 3: Applying & 

creating 

(1) Students started writing the product description 

using information from the factsheet. 

Photo D 

 

(1) Students started writing the 

product description while the 

real products still on the table 

Photo J 



42 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

It can be seen from photos in Table 2 that, while both PPI and PDI modules trigger the dynamics 
and positive atmosphere, the PDI session appeared to have more vigorous dynamics as student 
movements and interactions were relatively higher. While the real products were brought to the PDI 
session (Photos F and G), the factsheet (Photo A) that provided information relevant to the products 
was given to students in the PPI session. The PDI students moved around their products on the table 
while doing the learning task in Step 2 to touch, notice, or even to taste the edible ones and discussed 
them among their group members, as demonstrated in Photos H and I. In contrast, Photos B and C in 
the PPI module showed that the PPI students sat as a group, and their discussion was based on the 
given factsheet. The PPI students were unable to do what the PDI students did – touch, notice, or taste 
the real products  – which are processes that appeal to human senses. Even in the writing process in 
Step 3, when each group in both PPI and PDI started to write using all the information they acquired 
in Step 2, the dichotomy clearly existed in both modules. As exemplified in Photos H, I, J, and K, 
each group’s students still moved around the product in the PDI module.  In contrast, as shown in 
Photos B, C, D, and E, students sat in a group and read the lecturer’s factsheet in the PPI module. 
According to the researcher’s field note:  

 

Photo E 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo K 

 

(2) Photo taken by the students 

and information about the 

production of image were 

applied in the writing 

Photo L 

 

Photo M 

 

Step 4: Providing 

feedback & end the 

session 

Same in both modules: Students from both modules handed it their product description 

to the lecturer to get feedback. Lecturer gave feedback and suggestions for revision. 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 43 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

“The PPI students sat and discussed quietly as the information needed for writing 

was provided in the factsheet.”  

The statement shows that the PPI students did not have to or could not walk around to touch, notice, 
or taste the products. Results of the observation point that in the PDI module, the product’s tangibility 
acts as a focal point on which to generate ideas and stimulate analysis and interrogations.  

As for student engagement, Photos H and I illustrate the students’ willingness to participate in 
given tasks in the PDI module compared to Photos D and E, which are learning activities in the PPI 
module. In the PDI’s focused group discussion, one student reported that: 

“Once that we agreed on which product we wanted to write about, my friends and 

I had to visit and interview the producer of the product.  I think this is a learning 

activity that takes time and energy; it not just that we sit and write about a product. 

But we have to seek information about the product by ourselves.” 

Another PDI student supported:  

“We put a lot of effort. We traveled to the product’s factory, took pictures, and 

talked to the factory’s owner. But that is not the end of the process. Before we 

traveled, we had to make lots of appointments, prepare list of questions, and plan 

everything beforehand. We felt stressed out and anxious, but overall it was fun to 

travel and talk.” 

Claims from these two students show students’ persistence and effort, which, according to 
O’Donnell et al. (2011), are an indicator of behavioral engagement in learning while the students’ 
perception of the overall enjoyment of the task, rather than the negative emotions such as stress or 
anxiety, indicates the emotional engagement. In addition, the learning in the PDI module is not 
confined to the boundaries of the classroom; instead, it situates students in authentic contexts. This 
finding underlines Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning, which posits that knowledge occurs 
when it takes place in authentic contexts. According to Kurt (2017), the learning occurs, and 
knowledge is developed in the situation that provides learners with situations similar to ones in the 
real world. In the researcher’s field note, it was written that: 

“During Step 2, PPI students do not look curious about the product they are going 

to write about. They read the factsheet quietly. Discussions with groupmate don’t 

actually occur.” 

One PPI student reported in the focused group discussion that: 

 “To be honest, I felt so bored reading the factsheet. All the information we need to 

write about the product are provided in the factsheet. What should we be curious 

about?” 

This claim firstly suggests that the PPI module prevents student involvement in Step 2 of the 
learning process, and secondly, the lack of involvement may lead to students’ absence of curiosity. It 
may impair the students’ engagement in the learning process in the long term. Furthermore, the 
absence of enjoyment suggests that the students are not emotionally engaged in the learning process 
(O’Donnell et al., 2011). 

3.2 PDI & PPI Writing Scores 

The researcher assessed students’ product descriptions using the scoring criteria adapted from 
Huda and Gumilang’s (2019) scoring rubric of writing test and Peter’s (2016) blog on product 
description.  Students’ written product description scores are displayed in Table 3 . 

According to Table 3, no PPI groups got “Good Level” in the writing assignment; 2 out of 4 writing 
pieces were rated “Fair” while the other two were rated “Poor” (PPI Groups B and C rated at 2.8 and 
2.0, respectively, and PPI Group A and D were rated at 1.25 and 1.4, respectively). The product 
descriptions written by students in the PDI module, in contrast, were rated as “Good” in three groups; 
PDI Groups E, F, and G gave average scores of 3.0, 3.2, and 3.2, respectively. The product description 
written by the PDI Group H gave an average score of 2.6, and no work was rated as “Poor.” 



44 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

Holistically, the PPI module’s overall score was 2.05, rated as a “Fair” group level, while the overall 
score of the PDI module was 3.0, which was regarded as a “Good” group level. 

Interestingly, Table 3 shows two writing elements rated at the same level in the two inductive 
modules: Grammar and Organization of students’ writing pieces from both modules were equally 
rated “Poor” and “Fair,” respectively.  The visual element in the product description written by 
students from the PDI module, in contrast, was rated as “Good” (average 3.5) while that of the PPI 
students was regarded as “Poor” (average 1.5).  Content and vocabulary of the writing pieces produced 
by the PDI students were rated “Good” (average 3.75 and 3.5, respectively). In contrast, those of the 
PPI students were regarded as “Fair” (average 2.25 and 2, respectively).  

Table 3.  PPI & PDI Writing Scores 

Group/ 

Scoring 

Criteria 

Content 

(4) 

Vocabulary 

(4) 

Grammar 

(4) 

 Visual 

Appeal 

(4) 

Organization 

(4) 

Total 

Score 

(20) 

Average 

(4) 

Group 

Level 

PPI A 2 2 2  1 3 10 1.25 Poor  

PPI B 3 3 2  2 4 14 2.8 Fair 
PPI C 2 2 2  1 3 10 2.0 Fair 

PPI D 2 1 1  2 1 7 1.4 Poor 

Average 

Module  

2.25 2 1.75  1.5 2.75    

Level Fair Fair Poor  Poor Fair  2.05  Fair 

Group/ 

Scoring 

Criteria 

Content 

(4) 

Vocabulary 

(4) 

Grammar 

(4) 

 Visual 

Appeal 

(4) 

Organization 

(4) 

Total 

Score 

(20) 

Average 

(4) 

Group 

Level 

PPI E 4 3 2  4 2 15 3.0 Good 

PPI F 4 4 22  4 2 16 3.2 Good 

PPI G 4 4 2  4 2 16 3.2 Good 
PDI H 3 3 1  3 3 13 2.6 Fair 

Average 

Module  

3.75 3.5 1.75  3.5 2.5    

Level Good Good Poor  Good Fair  3  Good 

 

3.3 Challenges of Inductive Teaching in Thai Contexts 

Data from the focused discussions among eight representative students, together with data 
collected during the classroom observations, indicate two common challenges in implementing both 
inductive teaching methods while teaching English writing to Thai students.  The likelihood that the 
students will notice and identify some patterns implicit in the examples shown becomes the first 
challenge found in both inductive modules. All eight students from both PPI and PDI similarly 
expressed this difficultly. For example, a PPI student reported that:   

“We were given a variety of product descriptions, but so what is next? I mean what 

should we do next. What and where to start with?”  

Likewise, a PDI student specified that:  

“I feel like a good product description should use active voice, rather than passive 

voice. But I am not sure if this is really correct. Moreover, I don’t know whether I 

should start with writing the introduction or just go straight to the product’s 

ingredients.”   

The researcher’s fieldnote supports students’ claim: 

“When the students were presented with examples of product descriptions, they 

looked quiet. They did not discuss among their groupmate. Maybe they did not 

know what should be discussed about or where to start.” 

This finding suggests that having to discover the rules on their own and experiment with how these 
rules work is too time-consuming for the students to achieve the task, and they are not sure whether 
or not the rules they have visualized on their own are accurate. The uncertainty about grammar 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 45 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

accuracy is reflected in the students’ writing scores (in Table 3), which illustrates that grammar is a 
weakness for students from both modules. Students’ difficulties in detecting and formulating grammar 
and rules in writing on their own suggest that the direct, explicit teaching of writing may still be a 
pragmatic and preferable approach for Thai students. 

In language education, explicit teaching is a structured form of instruction in which lessons and 
learning activities are purposefully designed and distributed to students. Even though explicit teaching 
is controversial due to its emphasis on memorization, drilling, and rule-governed learning activities, 
several studies indicate that explicit teaching can make lessons clearer, compared to implicit teaching 
(Forey & Cheung, 2019), as it has emphases on modeling for students, i.e., showing them what and 
how to do a task. In the EFL context, particularly, literature has indicated the practicality and 
potentiality of employing explicit, instead of implicit, as a method of teaching a language (Tang, 2012; 
Yeung et al., 2016). The current study’s finding suggests that the first step of both the PPI and PDI 
might need adjustment. Rather than being shown an example of writing, the students should be 
provided with worksheets or guidelines purposefully designed to help them quickly discover and 
formulate the writing rules on their own in a succinct amount of time. This requires more work and 
preparation on the teacher’s part, who will provide a scaffold for the students. 

Students’ perception of learning as a burden was another challenge in implementing inductive PPI 
and PDI. Information elicited from the focused discussions with the PPI and PDI students pointed to 
how the students perceived the burden of learning was shifted from the teacher to them. One of the 
PPI students reported that: 

“My groupmates and I don’t understand why we have to discover the writing rules 

on our own. I think the lecturer can do this for us.”  

Rather than viewing PDI as a way to nurture their critical thinking skills, the students perceive 
higher burden of learning, as one of them elaborated on the tasks they were required to do: 

“The list of what we have to do is long. I remember that week my friends and I 

stayed up midnight almost the whole week. I didn’t know why we had to do this.” 

Another PDI student further supported this: 

“On Task 1 don’t you think it is easier and faster if the lecturer just tells us how to 

write a product description? On Task 3 I was excited that I didn’t have to go to 

class in that week. We went out to the product’s producer. But at the end of the 

day, we were very exhausted.”  

The students’ elaboration in the above examples reflects the lack of understanding when using 
fundamental objectives of inductive instruction. The researcher’s primary rationale for implementing 
PPI and PDI is to let learning occur “bottom-up,” following Thornbury’s (1999) proposition. 
However, students did not clearly understand why the learning sequences were changed, and the 
learning roles were shifted from the learner as the receiver to the learner as the discoverer of 
knowledge. 

3.4. PDI as an Effective Teaching Method 

The study results indicate that PDI has resulted in students having better writing skills and more 
classroom dynamics and engagement. The study found that PDI has some characteristics that reinforce 
the teaching of English writing. These characteristics include tangibility, authenticity, and 
contextuality. 

1) Tangibility  

The key to the PDI approach is that the products are tangible and appeal to the human senses. Its 
tangibility act as a focal point on which to generate ideas and stimulate analysis and interrogations. A 
commercial product selected and used in the PDI approach is tangible and can be perceived by the 
sense of touch, sight, or even taste (see Photos F and G in Table 2). In mathematics and science, 
abstract concepts are frequently taught and represented by tangible objects. Objects’ tangibility is 
claimed to enable the students to make connections between mathematic concepts, which are usually 
abstract, with tangible, concrete objects and foster a more profound understanding. According to Antle 
and Wise (2013), tangibles serve as tools for thinking and foster connections between abstract 



46 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

concepts through concrete representations. In this light, the PDI approach persists that abstract, 
complicated concepts can be concretely represented through concrete, touchable, seeable, or edible 
products.  In this regard, the product selected to use in the English writing class should be accessible 
to the learners, promote hands-on experiences, encourage exploration and reflection, and provide 
learners with the analyzing tools they require to accomplish the task.  

2) Authenticity  

One dichotomy of the two inductive methods examined in the current study lies in the authenticity 
of the medium used and the elicitation of information. In PPI, the target product’s analysis is 
conducted with the printed image and the textual information provided by the teacher. Therefore, the 
analysis of the product in the PPI method is paper-based. Contrarily, the PDI method analyzes 
authentic, tangible products, allowing the students to see, touch, smell, squeeze, or, on some occasions, 
taste the product. The fact that the PDI students will be required to seek their own product, engage 
with the product, meet with the producer, and observe the product’s production suggests that the PDI 
module situates students in real contexts. In this light, the PDI module provides students with 
opportunities to make real connections with what is learned in the classroom and what is required in 
the workplace (Meyers & Lester, 2013). The students will be aware of the need to communicate as a 
professional in an authentic context. This provision of opportunities for making real connections 
reflects the lecturer’s awareness of real business demands. According to Arputhamalar and Kannan 
(2015), the students need to be trained to meet those demands. In addition, PDI embraces Lave and 
Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning theory, which is a theory on how a person develops professional 
skills. Situated Learning focuses on experiential and situational activities and posits that learning 
occurs through social engagement and takes place beyond classroom boundaries, which could be in 
kitchens, gardens, sports centers, field trips, depending on the field of knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 
1991).   

3) Contextuality  

PDI embeds learning activities or assignments into meaningful and real context rather than being 
treated as mere learning activities or exercises in classrooms. In this way, PDI contextualizes its 
content and instruction, responding to Hollis-Turner and Scholtz’s (2010) proposition, which 
underlines the need to design writing tasks that bridge the gap between writing in academic contexts 
and writing in real business contexts. It can be expected that PDI will be able to enhance students’ 
capability to transfer what is taught in the classroom to what is required in the workplace. Thus, 
language activities and exercises are not isolated from real contexts and are contextualized. The 
significance of the effort that the PDI approach takes the students to learn and explore in the real 
context is the belief in the school or university classroom that the language input is mainly produced 
from the teacher or lecturer, who is not a real audience in the business environment (Al-Mohammadi 
& Derbel, 2015). In addition, allowing students to immerse in the real working contexts reflects the 
partnership with the community in which the students live, which later on can enhance Situated 
Learning (Mayers & Lester, 2013). Writing classes that do not follow PDI principles involve objects 
that the students have no experience with, leading the students’ language output to be produced 
regardless of context. As such, the language input and output in classrooms is often de-contextualized. 
Decontextualized language instruction may be effective for young children’s vocabulary acquisition 
in the early stages. As the ultimate goal of language learning in higher education is to use the target 
language correctly and appropriately in real contexts, the study results suggest that PDI is adopted 
because it does not confine business writing to the classroom; rather, this instructional approach 
provides opportunities for students to produce writing pieces based on information elicited from real 
contexts. 

4. Conclusion  

The study reported in this article sought to compare similarities and differences between two 
inductive teaching approaches adopted in a Business English writing training program in Thailand 
and identify which would be more effective. The study results indicate three features that distinguish 
PDI from PPI, including tangibility, authenticity, and contextuality and recommend Product-based 
Instruction (PDI) over Paper-based Instruction (PPI) as a more effective means for teaching Business 
English writing in Thailand. PDI features can optimize overall enjoyment and engagement in the 
learning process and provide opportunities for students to learn in authentic professional 



E-ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 47 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

environments, contexts, and culture that is cast in real-life situations. The challenges of implementing 
both types of inductive instruction were also identified. This included the fact that both instructional 
modules are unable to strengthening students’ grammar accuracy, which may be because the inductive 
instruction does not teach the grammar directly. The students’ attitude toward inductive learning also 
needs to be changed; rather than viewing inductive learning activities as an extra burden, students 
should perceive this approach of learning as a way to learn and explore on their own which will lead 
to critical thinking skills. The challenges of inductive instructions addressed in this study suggest that 
future research needs to be completed to make PDI better in terms of grammar accuracy and explore 
ways to help change students’ paradigm of inductive learning.  

 

Declaration 
Author contribution : The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study 

conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of 

results, and manuscript. 

Funding statement : The research is non-funded. 

Conflict of interest : The author declares no conflict of interest. 

Additional information : No additional information is available for this paper. 
 

 

REFERENCES  
Adamson, R.M., & Wachsmuth, S.T. (2017). A review of direct observation research within the past decade in 

the field of emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 39(4),181-189. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291303900403 

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). 

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6619-1.ch012 

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. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws007 

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. 

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. (2014). The use of triangulation in 

qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum, 41(5), 545-547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547 

Faulkner, S.L., & Trotter, S.P. (2017). Data saturation. Wiley Online Library. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0060  

Forey, G., & Cheung, E. (2019). The benefits of explicit teaching of language for curriculum learning in the 

physical education classroom. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 91-109. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.01.001 

Hancock, M. E., Amankwaa, L., Revell, M. A., & Mueller, D. (2016). Focus group data saturation: A new 

approach to data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21(11), 2124-2130. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-

3715/2016.2330 

Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-based Nursing, 16(4), 98. 

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101494 

Hennink, M.M, Kaiser, B.N., & Marconi, V.C. (2017).Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many 

interviews are enough? Qual. Health Res,27(4),591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 

https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291303900403
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6619-1.ch012
https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws007
https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0060
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.01.001
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2330
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2330
https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101494
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344


48 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 34-48 

 Rungwaraphong (Inductive teaching approaches in business English writing in an EFL context) 

Hollis-Turner, S., & Scholtz, D. (2010). Business writing in academic and workplace contexts. Southern 

African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28(3), 239–246. 

https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2010.545026 

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. 

Kurt, S. (2017). Situated learning theory. in educational technology. Retrieved from 

https://educationaltechnology.net/situated-learning-theory/   

Lave, J., & E. Wenger. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: 

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 

Nightingale, A. J. (2020). Triangulation. in: International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier, pp. 

477–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10437-8  

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning.  Boston: Heinle. 

Meyers, S., & Lester, D. (2013). The effects of situated learning through a community partnership in a teacher 

preparation program. SAGEOpen, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013497025 

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. 

Perfors, A. (2014). Induction in language learning. In In PJ Brooks and V Kempe (Eds.). Encyclopedia of 

Language Development (pp. 281-283). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346441.n90 

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). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2011.6059556 

deTang, 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. 

Tie, Y.C., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice 

researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press. 

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. 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2010.545026
https://educationaltechnology.net/situated-learning-theory/
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10437-8
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013497025
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346441.n90
https://smarter-ecommerce.com/blog/en/ecommerce/product-descriptions-elements-and-specifications/
https://smarter-ecommerce.com/blog/en/ecommerce/product-descriptions-elements-and-specifications/
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2011.6059556
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927

