An Activity Theoretical Investigation into the Dominant Composition and Translation Activities of EFL learners across Persian and English

Document Type: Original Article


English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran


The present study aimed at investigating the impact of a genre-specific strategy-based instructional inter- vention on translation quality, dominant translation and writing activities in the persuasive essays of a group of EFL learners within the perspective of activity theory. The main purpose of the study was to see, taking translation as a sort of writing in its own right, whether the kind of instructional intervention im- plemented influence the writing and translation activities of learners similarly or not. To this end, 22 in- termediate EFL learners received 10 sessions of self-regulatory strategy development (SRSD) instruction accompanied by some translation exercises on persuasive writing. Based on the results, SRSD did not have any significant effect on the translation quality of the students. However, the comparison of pretest and posttest scores on the persuasive probe and translation test revealed that the genre-specific strategy instruction influenced the dominant translation and writing activities of the participants. The findings pointed to the fact that the issues related to the students' new learning histories changed the nature of their activity systems both in persuasive essay writing and translation.


Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rehtorical approach. Text, 5(4), 309-326.

Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activity: Analysis of SLA tasks from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskyan appaoaches to second language research (pp. 173-193). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fahim, M., & Rajabi, S. (2015). Applying self-regulated strategy development model of instruction to teach writing skill: Effects on writing performance and writing motivation of EFL learners. .International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(2), 29-42.

Farahzad, F. (1992). Testing achievement in translation classes. In C. D. A. Loddegaard (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent, and experience (pp. 271-279). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Translation: Literary, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp. 159-175). New York: University of Delware Press.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 383-402). New York: Guilford Press.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295-340.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new model of cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hemingway, E. (1963). The old man and the sea (N. Daryabandi, Trans.). New York: Simon & Schuster.

House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tubingen: Narr.

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Leventhal, H., & Cameron, L. (1987). Behavioral theories and the problem of compliance. Patient Education and Counselling, 10(1), 117-138.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-501). San Diego: Academic Press.

Santangelo, T., Harris, K. R., & Graham, H. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy development to support students who have “trubol giting thangs into werds”. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 78-89.

Swain, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation (Vol. 11). London: John Benjamins Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zimmerman, B. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key sub-processes? . Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(2), 307-313.